IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3397 of 2009 Between: M/s. Paidala Tirupathi Reddy & Bros. Rep. by The Managing Partner, Sri Paidala Tirupathi Reddy, Chapati Raja Sekhar Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy Age:45. Office at: House No. 1-1266, Navab Pet, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by The Chief Engineer R & B Department, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner Commissionerate of Tenders BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer R & B Department Kadapa. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue appropriate Writ or order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not opening the price bid of the Petitioner for consideration for award of the contract of improvement to Road (a) from 0/0 to 1/6 of M.N.B.B. Road to meet P.G. Road (via) Auto Nagar (b) from came KM 0/0 to 0/7 Proddatur, Chagalamarri Road to meet MNBB Road (via) Radha Nagar, Kadapa Dist. as illegal, irregular, arbitrary unconstitutional, unjustified and unsustainable and direct the Respondents to open the price bid of the Petitioner and award the contract to the tenderer who has quoted the lowest rate. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3397 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: It appears, in pursuance of the notification issued by the 3rd respondent in the third week of December, 2008 inviting tenders for the work of improvement to Road (a) from KM 0/0 to 1/6 of M.N.B.B. Road to meet P.G. Road (via) Auto Nagar (b) from KM 0/0 to 0/7 of Proddatur of Chagalamarri Road to meet M.N.B.B. Road (via) Radha Nagar in Kadapa district, petitioner submitted its tender along with all required particulars and on 16.1.2009, the date on which the technical bid was opened, it was informed that it is disqualified for opening of the price bid on the ground that its tender did not indicate the requirement of mobilization advance for purchase of one number of weigh batcher. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the cost of the said machinery is only Rs.26,000/- and that the petitioner has already purchased the same as of now. Even otherwise, it is not an essential condition for compliance and the respondents could not have rejected to open the price bid of the petitioner on that ground alone. This Court, while ordering notice before admission on 20.2.2009 directed the respondents not to finalise the tenders. The learned Government Pleader states that till date, tenders are not finalized. The learned counsel for petitioner states that there are only two tenderers in the field. Petitioner quoted 0.9% above the estimated price and the other person quoted 4.95% above the estimated price. Be that as it may, since the condition which is said to have been not satisfied by the petitioner, was not being an essential one, and even otherwise, he has already purchased the said machinery, the respondents are directed to consider and evaluate both the tenders and take a final decision in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 6.8.2009 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3397 of 2009 6.8.2009