IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.673 OF 2010 DATED:21.9.2010 Between: M/s. Paidala Tirupathi Reddy and brothers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, P. Thirupathi Reddy S/o. Jayarami Reddy, H. No.1-1266, Near Vinayaka Temple, Bangla Thota Nawabpet, Nellore … Appellant And The Engineer in Chief, Roads and Buildings Administration & N.H. Erramanzil, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.673 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Tender notice in respect of the work called “Improvements to Nirmal – Apparaopet Road from Km14/0 to 24/700 in Adilabad District (work in Km.17/3 to 22/6)”, was responded to by the appellant also through his technical bid accompanied by a bank guarantee but bank guarantee was not in the prescribed proforma, consequently his tender could not receive consideration. According to the learned Senior Counsel Shri Vedula Venkata Ramana, appearing for the appellant, contents of the bank guarantee cannot amount to an essential condition. Dealing with the submission, the respondents contended that the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant relates to an advanced stage that is ‘execution of a contract’, whereas contents of proforma gives effect to a bank guarantee on the failure or refusal of a party to execute the agreement which alone is relevant to the case on hand. We have gone through the proforma as also the bank guarantee filed by the appellant and we find a world of difference between the two therefore the objection raised by the respondent – department has rightly found favour with the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order. Dismissed. SANJAY KUMAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 21-9-2010 B. Narsinga Rao