IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Dated: 05.12.2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.31169 OF 2011 Between: M/s. Jyothi Bakery ..... PETITIONER AND The Principal Director and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.31169 OF 2011 ORDER: The Ordnance Factories Institute of Learning, Medak, runs a catering facility for trainees who come to the institute. The catering service is primarily for the benefit of such trainees who pay for the mess charges and the said arrangement of catering is every year tendered out by the 1st respondent. The tender forms for the year 2011 – 2012 were also issued to the interested parties, which include the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Based on the terms and conditions which are fixed in conformity with every years tender process, the 1st respondent had finalized the 2nd respondent’s tender as it was found to be lowest i.e., Rs.103/- per person, whereas that of the petitioner was at Rs.108/- per person. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the 1st respondent in finalizing the tender in favour of the 2nd respondent and the specific ground for challenging is that though the tender of 2nd respondent is listed as lowest, it does not have any proof of residence or any business to substantiate its experience. It is alleged that no such establishment as purported to be the 2nd respondent exists and that the 2nd respondent does not have any trade licence nor is it entitled to participate in the tender process. On that ground, the tender of 2nd respondent which is lowest for the purpose of awarding of tender is questioned. Initially, as the petitioner continued beyond the last years term, pending finalization of the impugned tender, to enable learned counsel for the respondents to get instructions and file counters, I directed status quo to be maintained till the matter was heard on 01.12.2011. Now that counters are filed by the 1st as well as the 2nd respondents and all the learned counsel have advanced their respective submissions. The Writ Petition itself is being disposed of. With regard to the petitioner’s primary contention that the 2nd respondent does not exist, it is evident from the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent was in fact the successful tenderer which has worked the very same contract for the years 2007 – 2008, 2008 – 2009 and 2009 – 2010. Only for the year thereafter i.e., the previous year 2010 – 2011, the petitioner was awarded the contract. The 1st respondent, therefore, states that since the 2nd respondent was a contractor for three consecutive terms up to 2009 – 2010, it cannot be said that it is non- existing. It is also stated that the lowest tender of the 2nd respondent was duly considered as more economical and competitive than that of the tender of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent had also filed a counter asserting that it was a contractor for three previous years earlier continuously and that after the present tender is awarded, it has already taken possession and it was issued supply orders. It was denied that 2nd respondent does not exist. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and particularly learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to accept the principal contention of the learned counsel that the 2nd respondent is a non-existing firm when the assertions in the counter affidavits of both the respondents referred to above are not controverted by any reply affidavit nor there is any material to accept the said contention. It is not denied that the 2nd respondent was a contractor for three consecutive years and in that view of the matter, on the basis of it, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent does not exist. The 1st respondent being satisfied of the eligibility of the 2nd respondent to work the said contract, however, already awarded the contract to it, and it is said to be working as well. In that view of the matter, the decision making process of the 1st respondent being not vitiated, I find no reason to interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 05, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.31169 OF 2011 Dt. 05.12.2011 MD