The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.4610 of 2011 Date: 14.10.2011 Between: Sri K.Purushotham ..... Petitioner AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Women Development and Child Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Nazir Ahmed Khan Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Women Development & Child Welfare Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4: ----- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, in awarding contract in favour of respondent No.3 in pursuance of tender notification No.C/814/2008, dated Nil-10-2010, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though notice is served, respondent No.3 has not entered appearance. In pursuance of the aforesaid notification, the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed their respective tenders for purchase of empty containers numbering 11 items. Among the three tenderers, respondent No.3, admittedly, has offered the highest amount and therefore, the contract was awarded in his favour. When respondent No.3 has made a representation to respondent No.2, the rates offered by respondent No.3 were reduced drastically by proceedings, dated 04-02- 2011. In the present Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner, questioning the award of contract in favour of respondent No.3, this Court took serious exception to the acceptance of the request of respondent No.3 to reduce the rates. Having regard to the strong view expressed by this Court, respondent No.2 has restored the original rates quoted by respondent No.3 when the contract was entered into with him. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 has failed to comply with the tender conditions by not filing the copies of income tax returns and sales tax clearance certificate. As the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 has not adverted to the said allegation, this Court has adjourned the case to enable respondent No.2 to file additional counter-affidavit. Accordingly, respondent No.2 filed a detailed counter-affidavit whererin it i s inter alia stated that, since the rates quoted by respondent No.3 were the highest for the purchase of various items of empty containers of food commodities and he has considerable experience with satisfactory performance of works during the year 2009-2010, the contract was awarded to respondent No.3, on 12-11-2010 for a period of one year commencing from 12-11-2010 to 31-11-2011, even though he has not filed the income tax returns and the sales tax clearance certificate. Undoubtedly, a person, who failed to comply with the mandatory tender conditions, shall not be awarded with the contract. But, obviously, respondent No.2 was guided by the fact that respondent No.3 has successfully completed similar contract earlier besides the fact that there is huge disparity in the rates offered by respondent No.3 and that offered by the petitioner and respondent No.4. Moreover, the contract period is coming to an end within a short while from now. Keeping these facts in view, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision, already taken by respondent No.2, which eventually caused benefit to the public exchequer as, admittedly, there is huge difference in the prices offered by respondent No.3 compared to the prices offered by the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 06-04-2011, is vacated and WPMP.No.5701 of 2010 is disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 14th October, 2011 LUR