APHC010379182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 19168/2025 Between: 1. HANUMA AGRO INDUSTIRES, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 238/C, 0PP.OLD POWER SUB- STATION, JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE NARASARAOPET, PLANADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR DISTRICT) - 522601. REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO MANDAVA, S/O. MANDAVA VENKATA NARASIMHA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.20-1-28/5, GANGULA BAZAR, 31ST WARD, NARSARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE AP STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGD. OFFICE AT G1, G2, 101, PRIME HILL CREST, VADDESWARAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATION AND FARMERS WELFARE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE, (MECHANIZATION AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION), KRISHI BHAVAN NEW DELHI 110001. 5. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PVS ICON BUILDINGS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE DIRECTOR, WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT (WDC), PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PVS ICON BUILDINGS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in rejecting the bids submitted by the petitioner for works under Schedule No.14 to 18 pursuant to the Tender Notification No. AP AGRO/ ASC/GS/WDC-PMKSY 2.0/2024-25' dated 07.06.2025 (Published on 09.06.2025) issued by the 1st respondent, on ground of Trademark not being registered. despite submission Trademark Application and relevant documents by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, unfair and violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Consequently direct the 1st respondent to re-consider the bids submitted by the petitioner for works under Schedule No. 14 to 18 and permit the petitioner to participate in the tender process pursuant to the Tender Notification No. 'AP AGRO/ ASC/GS/WDC- 3 PMKSY 2.0/2024- 25' dated 07.06.2025 (Published on 09.06.2025) and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the 1st respondent to reconsider and re-evaluate bids submitted by the petitioner for works under Schedule No.14 to 18 of the Tender Notification, by considering the representation dt.21.07.2025, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR AGRICULTURE 2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE 3. 4 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Doddaka Harsha Vardhan, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri ManiKanteswara Rao Kotha, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st Respondent and Sri T. Raghu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in rejecting the bids submitted by the Petitioner for works under Schedule Nos. 14 to 18 pursuant to the Tender Notification No.APAGRO/ASC/GS/WDCPMKSY 2. 0/2024- 25 dated 07.06.2025 Published on 09.06.2025 issued by the 1st respondent on ground of Trademark not being registered despite submission Trademark Application and relevant documents by the petitioner as illegal arbitrary unfair and violative of Principles of Natural Justice Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India Consequently direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the bids submitted by the petitioner for works under Schedule Nos. 14 to 18 and permit the petitioner to participate in the tender process pursuant to the Tender Notification No.APAGRO/ ASC/GS/WDCPMKSY 2.0/2024-25 dated 07.06.2025 Published on 09.06.2025 and to pass...” 3. The Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the terms and conditions of the Tender in so far as Schedule Numbers 13 to 20. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that upon consideration of the 5 Tender, it is submitted that, only two bidders have submitted the bid and the bidder, who is other than the Writ Petitioner, was also disqualified. He would submit that, in so far as Schedule Numbers 14 to 18 are concerned, the bid submitted by the Writ Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the Writ Petitioner has failed to submit the Trademark Registration Certificate. 4. The common conditions in almost all the Schedules, particularly the Schedules applied by the Writ Petitioner, are mandatory; and the Bidder is required to submit the Trademark Registration for branding, which is evident from the Tender Conditions (Ex.P1). The Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents submitted to the Competent Authority under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for Registration of Trademark. The said document is only an „Application‟ submitted to the Competent Authority for Registration of Trademark. 5. On perusal of the said Application (EX.P5), it transpires that the Writ Petitioner has applied for a Trademark only on 16.06.2025 and therefore, the status would indicate „Formalities Chk Pass‟. The said documents would clearly indicate that the Writ Petitioner had only applied for Registration of the Trademark, as recently as, on 6 16.06.2025. But it is not the Trademark Registration Certificate as such. 6. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner has submitted a Representation on 21.07.2025, requesting the Authority to consider the Application for Registration of Trademark in lieu of the mandatory production of Trademark Certificate. 7. Having regard to the above facts, this Court finds that the Writ Petitioner has not complied with the Tender requirements of submitting the Registered Trademark Certificate. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Respondent Authorities conveyed vide proceedings dated 18.07.2025 (Ex.P1) is justified. 8. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is devoid of any merits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Official Respondents are at „liberty‟ to consider the Representation of the Writ Petitioner dated 21.07.2025. It is made clear that this observation would confer no right on the Writ Petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI Date: 24.07.2025 ANS 8 117 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 19168/2025 Date: 24.07.2025 ANS