Telangana High Court N.Anjamma vs South Central Railway on 28 September, 2022 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.29528 OF 2022 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not accepting the tender of the petitioner which is highest one, for granting licence for running multipurpose stall on Plat Form Nos.4 and 5 of Vijayawada Railway Station and in issuing letter of acceptance to 4th respondent, whose tender is second one, for running the stall, vide proceedings dated 06.06.2022 issued by 2nd respondent, as illegal and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to accept the tender of the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri C.Rama Chandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. T.Surya Karan Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing Smt. L.Pranathi Reddy, learned Senior Government Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. There is no representation for respondent No.4. Perused the record. 3. Tender notification dated 10.02.2022 was issued by 2nd respondent calling tenders for grant of licence for running multipurpose stall on Plot Form Nos.4 and 5 of Vijayawada Railway Station. The petitioner herein had submitted his tender. The petitioner stood as L1 2 and even then they have disqualified the tender submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner herein had not uploaded a copy of the Aadhaar Card along with the tender document. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein had mentioned Aadhaar card number and due to inadvertence, she has not uploaded a copy of the Aadhaar Card. He would submit that the petitioner herein was also successful tenderer in respect of a contract in Railway Station, Ongole, along with the tender in respect of the said Ongole Railway Station, the petitioner herein had already uploaded Adhar Card. Therefore, the respondents are having her Aadhaar Card with them. Even then, the respondents have rejected the tender submitted by the petitioner herein. Therefore, the action of the respondents is arbitrary. 5. Whereas, Sri T.Surya Karan Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, would submit that as per the tender document, uploading a copy of the Aadhaar Card of the tenders is mandatory and the petitioner herein has not uploaded the same. Therefore, the respondents have rejected the tender submitted by the petitioner herein. He would further submit that there is no cause of action much less part of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction 3 of this Court. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The subject tender is in respect of Vijayawada Railway Station. 2nd respondent had issued the said tender notification and therefore, there is no cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 6. 1st respondent is only a General Manager and he has no role in the entire tender process. He would further submit that in respect of the tender of the Railway Station, Ongole, the petitioner herein was L2 and L1's tender was rejected on the ground of nonsubmission of certain documents which is mandatory. The petitioner herein is beneficiary of the said action of respondent. Even then, the petitioner herein has filed the aforesaid writ petition. 7. Before deciding the issues involved in the matter, it is trite to discuss the relevant principles dealing with the exercise of jurisdiction in tender matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The apex Court In Tata Cellular v. Union of India1 it was held as follows: 94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. 1 (1994) 6 SCC 651. 4 (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair p