IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7386 of 2008 Between: Dandi Vijay Kumar S/o Gnani r/o Quarter No. D-457, Gandhinagar, Godavaarikhani, Ramagundam mandal, Karimngar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Kothagudem, Khammam District, rep by its Chairman & Managing Director. 2 The Chief General Manager, RG-1, area, Godavarikhani, M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,Karimnagar District. 3 Smt. Veeragoni Kalavathi W/o Srinivas, r/o 15-3-543, LB Nagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. .....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 issue a writ or order or direction, more preferablyin the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for records from the ﬁle of the 2nd respondent with regard to Tender Notiﬁcation dt 26-9-2007 under Tender Enquiry Nos. RG. I/PD/01/99/ENQ/277/2007 and Tender Enquiry No. RG- I/PD/01/99/ENQ/278/2007, and examine the legality, property, regularity and correctness of the said notiﬁcation and quash the same declaringit as null and void being violative of Articles 14, 19 (i)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violatie of Principles of natural justice and doctrine of legitimate expectation and pass such further or other order or orders that may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GANTARAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 7386 of 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by Dandi Vijay Kumar with a prayer to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for the records from the ﬁle of the 2nd respondent with regard to Tender Notiﬁcation dated 26-9-2007 under Tender Enquiry Nos. RG1/PD/01/99/ENQ/ 277/2007 and Tender Enquiry No. RG- 1/PD/01/99/ ENQ/278/2007, and examine the legality and correctness of notiﬁcation and quash the same declaring it as null and void being violative of Articles 14, 19(i) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 called for tenders for door delivery of Indane LPG Cylinders from its godown situated at GDK-1 incline and also for supply of Bharath LPG cylinders from its godown situated at GDK-5 incline. The said notiﬁcation was published in the 'Eenadu' telugu news daily dated 25-7-2007. The petitioner responded to notiﬁcation and submitted his tender. He also deposited EMD of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of contract for delivery of Indane LPG Cylinders and Rs.45,000/- in respect of contract for delivery of Bharath LPG cylinders. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he emerged as successful tenderer in the lottery system adopted by the respondents 1 and 2. There being no allotment of work pursuant to the tender notiﬁcation, the petitioner ﬁled O.S.No.271 of 2007 seeking injunction. He also moved I.A.No. 592 of 2007 for interim relief. Indeed he secured interim relief on 17-8-2007. He invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not entrusting the work pursuant to the Notiﬁcation is violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 4-4-2008. Respondents entered appearance and filed counters. 5. One A. Potha Raju has sworn to the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that as per clause 2 of the terms and conditions enclosed to tender notice the work will be awarded to ﬁrst quotation ﬁrst picked provided it is in accordance with the tender notice and in case the quotation 1st picked in the lottery fails to be in conformity with the Tender Notice, then the 2nd quotation will be considered. It is further stated in the counter aﬃdavit that as per the clause 3 of the terms and conditions the tenderer should own the vehicle or he should have lease documents to transit cylinders. It is also stated in the counter aﬃdavit that lease deed enclosed to tender of the petitioner does not contain the signatures of owner of the vehicle. 6. Counter aﬃdavit of 3rd respondent in brief is that the tender of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents 1 and 2 for non-compliance of the tender conditions and consequently fresh tenders have been called for and he emerged as successful tenderer for supply of delivery of LPG gas cyclinders Indane Gas and Bharath Gas and accordingly contract was awarded to him vide letter No.GDK/DM/LPG/08/42, DATED 7-2- 2008 AND Lr. Nol. GDK/DM/LPG/08/143, DATED 7-2-2008 for a period of two years. 7. When the writ petition came for admission hearing, it is taken up for ﬁnal disposal with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner emerged as successful tenderer in the lottery system and therefore, work is to be entrusted to him. He further submits that non-entrustment of the work is in violation of the tender conditions. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the tender document furnished by the petitioner are defective since lease deed does not contain the signature of the owner of the lorry. 11. The fact that the lease deed enclosed to the tender documents by the petitioner does not contain the signature of the owner of the vehicle is not contradicted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defects can be cured by calling the petitioner to get the signature of the owner of the vehicle. If such a course is adopted, it would be allowing defect to be rectiﬁed in the tender documents which would be contrary to the tender conditions. 12. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the act of the respondents 1 and 2 in not alloting the work to the petitioner on the ground of lease deed not containing the signature of the lessor ( owner of the vehicle) cannot be found fault. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 14th October, 2008 KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 7386 of 2008 14th October, 2008.