IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18317 of 2008 Between: M/s. Lobster Business India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Mohd.Aneesuddin, having its registered office at R/o.6-1-67/2/1, Lakadikapool, Saifabad, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development And Fisheries Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Fisheries, Street No.4, Shanthi Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ declaring the action of the respondents in ﬁnalizing the tender for supply of only 100 mm ﬁngerlings for the entire quantity without considering the tender of the petitioner for supply of 75 mm ﬁngerlings, as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and liable to be set aside. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.HAMSA RAJ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18317 OF 2008 ORDER: The 2nd respondent herein, the Commissioner of Fisheries, issued a tender notice, dated 09.07.2008, inviting sealed tenders from interested persons for supply of ﬁsh seed (ﬁngerlings) of 75 mm and 100 mm for the purpose of stocking in the reservoirs situated in various districts of the State. Tenders were invited for four varieties namely 1) Catla, 2) Labio rohita (Rohu), 3) Mrigal and 4) Gross Corp. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted its bid for supply of 75 mm ﬁsh seed of all four categories. It is claimed that when the ﬁnancial bid was opened on 04.08.2008, the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder for supply of 75 mm ﬁsh seed for certain categories of ﬁsh. However, the 2 nd respondent did not ﬁnalise the tenders and kept the entire process pending. Subsequently the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent, in collusion with some other tenderers, decided to purchase only 100 mm ﬁsh seed and accordingly ﬁnalized the tender for supply of 100 mm ﬁsh seed only. Consequently, the petitioner’s tender, which was only for 75 mm, was not considered at all. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in ﬁnalizing the tender for supply of 100 mm ﬁsh seed for the entire quantity, without considering the tender of the petitioner for supply of the 75 mm ﬁsh seed, is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the 2 nd respondent, it is stated that 100 mm ﬁsh seed is preferred to 75 mm, because of advantage of higher survival and growth rate. It is explained that tenders were invited for both 75 mm and 100 mm ﬁngerlings to avoid any delay in inviting fresh tenders, since such delay would defeat the purpose of seed stocking, which is a time bound seasonal activity. Out of the tenders received, the Tender Committee found that the average price quoted for all categories is within the fund allocated by the National Fisheries Development Board, which sanctioned Rs.1/- per seedling. In the circumstances, the Tender Committee decided not to consider stocking with 75 mm ﬁsh seed and, accordingly, chose to ﬁnalise the tenders only with 100 mm ﬁsh seed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries appearing for the respondents. At the outset, it is to be noted that clause 30 of the Tender Notice reserved the right of the Commissioner of Fisheries to reject or cancel any/all tenders without assigning any reason and without any notice at any stage of tender ﬁnalization, approval and seed stocking process. It is also relevant to note that the Tender Committee was constituted by the Government of A.P., vide G.O.Rt.No.377 Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries (F.II) Department dated 28.07.2008, for evaluating the eligibility of the tenderers. The speciﬁc case of the respondents is that the Tender Committee has decided to opt for 100 mm ﬁsh seed only, keeping in view the ﬁnancial and technical grounds particularly the suﬃciency of the allocated budget and the advantage of 100 mm size over 75 mm in terms of survival and growth rate. Admittedly, the petitioner quoted only for 75 mm ﬁsh seed and it does not possess the fish seed of 100 mm. Even assuming that the price bid of the petitioner for supply of 75 mm fish seed for certain categories was the lowest, the said fact by itself does not confer any vested right on the petitioner to the award of contract. Having regard to the explanation oﬀered in the counter- aﬃdavit that the Tender Committee decided to opt for 100 mm ﬁsh seed for valid reasons and keeping in view clause 30 of the tender notice, which enables the Commissioner of Fisheries to take appropriate decision for rejection or cancellation of any tender, the impugned action of the 2nd respondent in not finalizing the tenders in respect of fish seed of 75 mm cannot be held to be either arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory. Particularly in the absence of allegation of malaﬁdes against any of the respondents, the interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. ________________ JUSTICE G.ROHINI 08-09-2008. IBL