THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10158 OF 2010 DATED JULY, 2010 BETWEEN P.Maheshwar Reddy … Petitioner And The Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad and Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10158 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the allotment of work to the fifth respondent pursuant to the tender notification issued by the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (A.P.Transco) for carrying out operation and maintenance works at various Sub- Stations. The contract was in relation to the period 2010-2011. The petitioner along with the fifth respondent and others participated in the tender process and the petitioner was awarded the contract in respect of two Sub-Stations, viz., 132 KVSS, Pulivendula and 132 KVSS, Balapanur but in so far as the Sub-Station 132 KVSS, T.G.Palli, is concerned the fifth respondent was awarded the contract. The ground of attack against this award of work is that the same is in the violation of Clause 2 of the Terms and Conditions specified by the A.P.Transco. It is the case of the petitioner that the fifth respondent has no experience and he, being possessed of requisite experience, ought to have been granted the subject contract in respect of the Sub-Station 132 KVSS, T.G.Palli. He places reliance on Clause 2(II) of the Terms and Conditions which reads as under: “2. Filing of Schedule: II. When more than one bidder quotes the same rates on par with lowest rates, then selection from such bidders will be made depending upon the native district, experience, past performance and Educational qualification (Technical) of the bidder. However preference will be given to the bidders who belong to native district. Performance certificate issued by field officer has to be enclosed to the tender. (The decision of A.P.Transco will be final and no correspondence what so ever will be entertained.)” In its counter, the A.P.Transco admitted that the petitioner submitted his bid for the contracts pertaining to three Sub-Stations and was ranked at priority No.1 in respect of all three. The fifth respondent, on the other hand, is said to have submitted his bid for five Sub- Stations but was ranked at priority No.2 only in respect of the Sub- Station 132 KVSS, T.G.Palli. Reference is made to Clause 32 of the Terms and Conditions which empowers the A.P.Transco to decide the tenders giving it liberty not to accept even the lowest tender. It is stated that as the petitioner had been awarded two works, i.e., 132 KVSS, Pulivendula, and 132 KVSS, Balapanur, the fifth respondent was awarded the work at 132 KVSS, T.G.Palli. The A.P.Transco denied that there was any violation of the terms and conditions of the tender. Heard Sri T.Kumar Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned standing counsel for the A.P.Transco. The fifth respondent, in spite of service of notice, remained aloof. Sri T.Kumar Babu, learned counsel, placed reliance on Clause 2(VI) of the Terms and Conditions which reads as under: “2. Filing of Schedule: VI. The total number of contract Works to be awarded to an individual Tenderers/Manpower societies will be limited to a maximum of three for operation and maintenance of sub-stations and lines. However APTRANSCO reserves right to increase the number of contracts to more than three depending on the necessity and labour strength.” The learned counsel contended that owing to the experience of the petitioner, the A.P.Transco ought to have awarded the subject work also to him as he was permitted to have a maximum of three works in accordance with the aforestated Clause. Per contra, Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned standing counsel, contended that Clause 32 of the Terms and Conditions left the discretion to the A.P.Transco and it was not necessary that the petitioner alone should be chosen be it on his priority ranking at Sl.No.1 or his experience. It is pertinent to note that Clause 2(VI) of the Terms and Conditions vests the A.P.Transco with a liberty to award contract works upto a maximum of three to an individual tenderer. Within such limit, the discretion lies with the A.P.Transco and it is not open to any individual tenderer to assert that he should be granted three works as a matter of right. It is also to be noticed that no allegations are made by the petitioner with regard to any mala fides or extraneous motives in so far as the award of the subject work to the fifth respondent is concerned. That being so, the action of the A.P.Transco in exercising its discretion and awarding two works to the petitioner and one work to the fifth respondent cannot be said to be in violation of the Terms and Conditions. No valid ground is made out warranting interference with this exercise by the A.P.Transco. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. __________ JULY, 2010. VGSR