THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.25743 of 2010 BETWEEN: 1. Ballari Venkateswara Rao, and others. PETITIONERS AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Roads a n d Buildings Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Bokka Satyanarayana Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4: G.P. for R & B Counsel for the respondents 5 & 6: Smt. G. Jhansi The Court made the following. ORDER: 1. The petitioners, who are non-bidders, have filed this Writ Petition challenging the auction held in favour of Respondents 5 and 6 pursuant to the Tender-cum-Auction Notice No.9/ATO/NHVJA/2010-11, dated 13-09-2010 and consequently to direct the official respondents to cancel the work allotted to the said respondents. 2. The 4th Respondent-Executive Engineer, R & B Department, N.H.Division, Vijayawada issued a Tender-cum-Auction Notice No.9/ATO/NHVJA/2010-11, dated 13-09-2010 calling for sealed tenders/auction in respect of two items/reaches ; (1) for removal and take away of live trees in the alignment of providing paved shoulders including renewals to the existing carriageway from km 181/70 to 205/0 of Kathipudi – Pamarru road of NH 214 (125 Nos.); and (2) for a similar work from 205/0 to 208/0 & km 216/0 to 222/60 (132 Nos.). 3. In respect of Item No.1, upset price was fixed at Rs.1,89,942/- and in respect of Item No.2, the upset price was fixed at Rs.2,94,936/-. The last date of the issue of tender schedules/auction conditions was up to 5 PM on 29-09-2010 and the receipt of the tenders was up to 2 PM on 30-09-2010. The date of auction was at 3.00 PM on 30-09-2010 and opening of the tenders was immediately thereafter. On 16-09-2010, the said notice was published in as many as five daily newspapers; (i) Saakshi; (ii) Andhra Prabha; (iii) Janatha; (iv) Citizens Evening and (v) Vennela. In response thereto, tenders were submitted only by the Respondents 5 and 6. The bid amount quoted by them and the amount finally offered and accepted are as follows : (1) Reach from Km 181/70 to 205/0 of Kathipudi – Pamarru road of N.H.214. S. No. Name of Bidder Upset Price Value Amount quoted by the bidder Amount offered during auction 1. Sri Y.Edukondalu Rs.1,89,942/- Rs.1,90,942/- Rs.1,91,942/- Sri G.V.Satyanarayana Rs.1,89,942/- Rs.1,90,742/- Rs.1,91,742/- (2) Reach from Km 205/0 to 208/0 and 216/0 to 222.60 of Kathipudi- Pamarru road of N.H.214. S. No. Name of Bidder Upset Price Value Amount quoted by the bidder Amount offered during auction 1. Sri Y.Edukondalu Rs.2,94,936/- Rs.2,96,136/- Rs.2,97,736/- Sri G.V.Satyanarayana Rs.2,94,936/- Rs.2,95,936/- Rs.2,97,936/- After accepting the bids, work orders were issued vide letters dated 07-10-2010 to the respondents 5 and 6. 4. The petitioners appear to have sent a representation through a telegram on 09-10-2010 to the respondents 2 to 4 complaining that the work was allotted to Respondents 5 and 6 without conducting public auction unauthorizedly and illegally; and at the same time offering their bid at Rs.9,00,000/-. As the said representation did not evoke response, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief. 5. Heard Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4 and Smt.G.Jhansi, learned counsel for the Respondents 5 and 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the work was allotted to the Respondents 5 and 6 without conducting public auction; that the 4th Respondent in collusion with Respondents 5 and 6, in order to favour them, failed to give wide publicity inviting tenders, thereby avoided competitive bidding; and that the bid amount accepted is far less than the upset price. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex court in Tata Cellular V. Union of India[1] he would contend that the allotment of work is arbitrary, therefore liable to be cancelled. 7. The learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the Respondents 5 and 6 while denying contentions would submit that the auction was held only after due publicity; that the petitioners did not participate in the bidding; that the bids of respondents 5 and 6 were accepted and the amounts were paid on 06-10-2010 and work orders also issued on 08-10-2010, pursuant thereto work was also commenced. They would therefore contend that the contract was concluded and the petitioners have no bona fides in seeking cancellation of the said concluded contract. 8. I have considered the rival contentions and the material placed on record. The contention that the Respondents 5 and 6 were allotted work without conducting public auction is ex facie untenable. The tender-cum-auction notice, dated 13-09-2010 was published in as many as 5 daily newspapers on 16-09-2010 duly captioning it as “E- Procurement Tender Notice” indicating the dates for receiving and submitting the applications and the date of auction. 9. The counsel for the petitioners would, however, contend that the newspapers in which the notice was published do not have wide circulation, particularly in other Districts, including West Godavari District to which the petitioners belong. Therefore, even if the publication had been made, the same should be held to be improper being the result of collusion between the 4th Respondent on the one hand and the Respondents 5 and 6 on the other. The said contention does not command acceptance; firstly, there is no foundation nor any material placed before this Court to show that the aforesaid newspapers do not have wide circulation; and secondly, from the material placed, it is noticed that one of the newspapers ‘Saakshi’ is a popular newspaper and the notice was published in the main edition, which has wide circulation in the neighbouring districts, including West Godavari District. Considering the nature and volume of work, the publicity given is more than sufficient. It cannot therefore be said that the work was allotted either without public auction or in a collusive manner without wide publicity. The amounts shown in the table above show that the bid amount is more than the upset price. 10. Nonetheless, it is contended that the work was undervalued and it would fetch more than the bid amount and that the petitioners themselves are prepared to pay Rs.9,00,000/-. 11. It may be mentioned that initially tender-cum-auction was invited vide notice, dated 15-06-2010 in respect of the reaches from Km 192/0 to 200/0 and 205/0 to 208/0. In response thereto, while no tenders were received for the reach from Km 192/0 to 200/0, two tenders alone were received for the reach from Km 205/0 to 208/0. Since the bid amount was quoted at Rs.65,000/- as against upset price of Rs.1,43,675/- the tenders were cancelled. Re-Tenders were invited pursuant to Notice dated 28-06-2010 and no tenders were received in response thereto. Therefore, the impugned tender notice was issued with additional reaches from Km 181/7 to 192/0, 200/0 to 205/0 & 216/0 to 222/6. Upset price was duly fixed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Krishna Division, Vijayawada. Thus, the events would show that after failing in the earlier attempts, some response was received only to the 3rd notification. The petitioners herein if really interested would have responded and offered their bids to the earlier notifications, which they failed to do. The process in the instant case commenced on 16-09-2010 by the publication of the notice in the newspapers and culminated only on 06-10-2010 when the bids of the Respondents 5 and 6 were accepted. The petitioners remained passive and only on 09-10-2010, they approached Respondents 2, 3 and 4 with their offer. Apparently, the petitioners are fence-sitters, all the while watching the progress and came forward only after the bids were accepted and work order was issued. Evidently, the petitioners have no bona fides in their approach. From the aforesaid facts, in my considered opinion, the work has been allotted after following due procedure without there being any arbitrariness involved. Hence, merely because the petitioners came forward to pay higher amount at a later date, the auction conducted cannot be held to be vitiated. The judgment cited has no application to the facts of the case. 12. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. February, 2011. Skmr/Js. [1] (1994) 6 SCC 651