IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.13007 of 2008 Between: Lenkala Bhupathi Reddy. … Petitioner And The District Collector & Magistrate, Karimnagar District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Sanjeeva Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise for R.1 & R.2. Sri E.Venkat Reddy for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not accepting the petitioner’s tender as contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 for short “the Rules”); and to direct respondents 1 and 2 not to re-auction Shop No.222 of Gundlapally village, Bejjanki Mandal, Karimnagar District, in pursuance of Gazette notification dated 17-6- 2008. In pursuance of Notification dated 6-6-2008, the petitioner applied for grant of A.4 license in respect of Shop No.222 of Gundlapalli village, Bejjanki Mandal. As the petitioner’s offer was not accepted and all the tenders in respect of Shop No.222 were rejected, proposals were made for issuing a fresh notification. At that stage, the present Writ Petition has been filed. In response to the notice of this Court, respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner offered the sum of Rs.35,55,555/-, whereas one Sri B.Mogili, S/o.Kumaraiah sent his tender by mentioning Shop No.222 on the cover, but he filed his tender for Shop No.223. It is further stated that in view of the said discrepancy and the fact that Sri B.Mogili offered Rs.40,19,999/-, respondent No.1 rejected all the tenders and decided to issue fresh notification. As directed by this Court, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise produced the record, which reveals that respondent No.1 has not mentioned the facts correctly in the counter-affidavit. Indeed, on the cover note, in which the sealed tender was filed by Sri B.Mogili, Shop No.223 was mentioned, while in the tender form Shop No.222 was mentioned against the column “Serial number of the Gazette”. He offered Rs.40,19,999/-. Thus, it is a case where, in the tender form proper, Sri B.Mogili offered higher amount in respect of Shop No.222 than the offer of the petitioner, though on the sealed cover Shop No.223 was mentioned by him. These facts certainly justify respondent No.1 in rejecting all the tenders and deciding to call for fresh notification. At the hearing, it is informed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that in pursuance of the fresh tender notification, which was notified in Gazette No.81, dated 17-6-2008, five tenders were received for Shop No.222 and Sri K.Satish S/o.Jeevaiah, respondent No.3 herein, offered highest amount of Rs.54,06,666/-. From the above mentioned facts it is evident that in view of the discrepancy contained in the tender submitted by Sri B.Mogili, who happened to be the highest bidder for shop No.222, respondent No.1 bonafide rejected the tenders and called for fresh tender notification. The highest offer made in pursuance of the fresh tender is almost double the offer made by the petitioner. While I do not find any arbitrariness in the action of respondent No.1 in calling fresh tenders, public interest warrants that the highest offer made in pursuance of the fresh tender notification shall be accepted. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-6-2009 MNR