IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.24614 and 24615 of 2010 BETWEEN R. Balrami Reddy. ... PETITIONER AND The A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D. KODANDA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Though vacate petitions have been filed by the respondents, at this stage, the writ petitions are heard with the consent of both the counsel and they are being disposed of by this common order, as the same petitioner has filed both the writ petitions and the facts and questions are also similar except for the change with respect to the work proposed viz. Nit.No.239/SE/APEWIDS/KDP/AE/2010-11 and Nit.No.235/SE/APEWIDS/KDP/AE/2010-11 respectively. 3. Petitioner, who is a class-III contractor, intended to participate in the tenders called for, referred to above, through e-procurement and the only area of dispute is with regard to the eligibility to compete, as price bid being denied to the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to deposit the bid processing fee online. Petitioner contends on the basis of the certificate issued by the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Madanapalle Branch dated 25.09.2010 that during the period from 01.07.2010 till date, NEFT applications have exhausted and therefore, draft challans were being put to use and that any counter foil with any NEFT reference number can be treated as NEFT challan counterfoil. Petitioner states that on account of the deficiency of the bank, as certified in the certificate, as above, he had paid the bid processing fee through demand draft and credited to the account of the second respondent. Rejection of petitioner’s bid, on the ground of making the payment aforesaid online is, therefore, questioned in the present writ petitions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of the failure of the bank to provide NEFT applications, the petitioner could not comply with the said requirement but the fact of his payment through DD cannot be denied and as such, there is no reason to disqualify the petitioner, especially as he is the lowest bidder. 5. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents places strong reliance upon conditions 3 and 4 of the tender, which states that no submission in paper form will be accepted and that no other mode of payment except by uploading the details as per the tender conditions, above, will be accepted. Relying on the said specific tender conditions, it is also stated that the petitioner has approached this Court on the basis of the counterfoil and the certificate issued by SBI, as above, and the same cannot be taken into consideration in due compliance of the tender conditions. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also points that while the said bid processing fee is required to be paid online in favour of the Superintending Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Kadapa, on his S.B. A/c No. mentioned in the tender form with code numbers, but, however, the DD was taken out by the petitioner in the name of EE, APEWIDC. Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, states that even otherwise the said draft is not in conformity with the requirement under the tender conditions and as such, the petitioner, who has failed to adhere to the conditions of the tender, cannot seek consideration of his technical bid. 7. The conditions 3, 4 and 13 of the tender on which reliance is placed by the learned standing counsel may be noticed, at this stage, as under: 3. Bid Processing fee (non refundable) Rs.10,000/- should be paid online by way of transfer through Bank in favour of Superintending Engineer, APEWIDC, Kadapa S.B Account No.407502010079619, IFSC Code No.UBIN 0540757 of Union Bank of India, Kadapa. The scanned copy of receipt should be uploaded along with the bids. Failure to upload the receipt online in the bid will be disqualified/rejected. No other payment will be accepted. 4. The technical bid evaluation of the tenderers will be done on the certificates/documents uploaded through online only. … 13. Contractors would be required to register on the e-procurement Market place ww.eprocurement.gov.in and submit their bids online. The department will not accept any bid submitted in the paper form. 8. It would be evident from the above that the general terms and conditions of the E-procurement are specific and does not admit any other mode of satisfaction of the conditions as is specifically mentioned in the tender conditions. Even the eligibility criteria mentioned in the beginning of the tender notice also says that the tenderers shall upload the copies of the documents, inter alia, EMd, scanned receipt of bid processing fee and transaction fee. It is well settled that the conditions of notice inviting tender are mandatory and required to be followed, especially when the conditions specifically states that compliance in no other mode will be accepted. The petitioner, having, admittedly, not complied with the conditions relating to payment of bid processing fee online, therefore, cannot seek a Mandamus for permitting him to pay the bid processing fee through paper mode. Further, any deviation from the terms and conditions of the contract would also violate the equality, if the petitioner is allowed to bid in this manner many others, who could have bid in the paper mode, would also have to be allowed. The conditions of notice inviting tender being mandatory, it is not permissible to accept the contentions of the petitioner contrary to the same. Since the action of disqualifying the petitioner for opening of his price bid is upheld, the respondents may consider the request of the petitioner for refund the earnest money deposit and other amounts, if any, paid by him. The writ petitions, therefore, being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 22, 2011 DSK