IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^ FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE or o/j PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24811 & 23979 OF 2024 WRIT PETITION NO: 24fi11 DF 2024 Between: Nagendra Infra. Rep. by its Proprietress Smt. Nallamothu Anusha Danda Nagendra Kumar, age about 34 years, R/o D.No.1-102, Main Road, Dharani Kota Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Palnadu District-522020 . Rani W/o. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, and Commerce (Mines) Department, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Industries Secretariat, Velagapudi, 2. The Commissioner and Director, Department of Mines and Geology, B- Block, 5th and 6th floors, Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahimpatnam, N.T.R District, A.P. 3. The Collector and Chairman, District level Nellore District, Nellore. 4. The Joint Collector and Nodal officer for Sand Nellore. 5. The District Mines and Geology Officer and Member District level Sand Committee, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. sand committee, SPSR SPSR Nellore District, Convener of ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ of Certiorari and Mandamus call for the records relating to the tender Notification No.2544/DLSC-Sand/NL R/2024 Dt. 05.10.2024 and CCTV footage, video footage induding the statement r showing the details of selected members signatures along with DISC memJ^ers signatures dated 17.10.2024 in the conference hall of collectorate ■/ ."4 premises and declare the action of the respondent No.3 in not issuing the letter of award (LOA) to the petitioner herein having selected as a LI bidder for Minagallu-IV sand reach, Minagallu Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, . SPSR Nellore District in spite of qualified as LI bidder as well as winning the lottery drawn and the respondent No.3 issued the tender notification No.2544/DLSC-Sand/NLR/2024, dated 27.10.2024 pending writ petition Nos.23978 and 24552 of 2024 before this Hon’ble Court as illegal, arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable and violation of the G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 02.09.2024 and colourable exercise of the respondent No.3 and violation of the legal duty cast on him and in violation of Article 14, 16, 19(1)(g) 21 and 299 of Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to issue letter of award (LOA) and permit the petitioner to do work in respect of Minagallu-IV sand reach, Minagallu Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and further set aside the tender notification No.2544/DLSC-Sand/NLR/2024, dated 27.10.2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: The District Mines and Geology Officer and Member, Convener of District level Sand Committee, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. M ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND 1. Nagendra Infra, Rep. by its Proprietress Smt. Nallamothu Anusha Rani W/o. Danda Nagendra Kumar, age about 34 years, R/o D.No.1-102, Main Road, Dharani Kota Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Palnadu District- 522020. OTv ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Secretariat, Velagapudi, 3. The Commissioner and Director, Department of Mines and Geology, B- Block, 5*^ and 6*'' floors, Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahimpatnam, N.T.R District, A.P. 4. The Collector and Chairman, District level Nellore District, Nellore. sand committee, SPSR 5. The Joint Collector and Nodal officer for Sand, SPSR Nellore Nellore. (Respondents No’s. 2 to 5 are not District, necessary in this petition) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated passed in lA No. 1 of 2024 in W.P No.24811 of 2024 and dismiss the writ' petition No.24811/2024. on 29.10.2024 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the No.2544/DLSC-Sand/NLR/2024, dated 27.10.2024, petition. Counsel for the PetItionerSRI. T N M RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 to 5: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY tender notification pending disposal of writ WRIT PETITION NO: 23978 OF 2024 Between: M/s Godavari Krishna Water Ways And Transport Company Tatineni Pitcheswara Rao, H.No. 54-l4/8-22B{1), Piot no: 6, S* Cross Road, Bharathinagar, Vijayawada-520008, NTR District, A.P„ Proprietor; ...PETITIONER AND r 1. Government of A.P represented by its Principal Secretary Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director, Department of Mines block, 5‘^ and floor Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahimpatnam Secretariat, Velagapudi, and Geology, B- N.T.R District, A.P 3. The Collector and Chairman, District level Nellore District, Nellore. 4. The Joint Collector and Nodal officer, for Sand, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. 5. The District Mines and Geology Officer and Member, Convener of District level Sand Committee, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. sand committee, SPSR ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated Th the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari and records relating to the tender No. mandamus call for the 2544/DLSC-Sand/NLR/2024 Dt, dated 17.10.2024 in 05.10.2024 and CCTV footage and video footage Tikkannabhavan in collectorate premises and declare the inaction of the respondent No.3 in not issuing the letter of award (LOA) to the petitioner herein having recognized a LI bidder for Pallipadu-IV sand reach as Pallipadu (V), Indukurupeta Mahdal, SPSR Nellore District in spite of qualified as LI bidder as well as winning the lottery draw as illegal, arbitrary and violation of spirit and object of the G.O.M.S No. 49, dated 02.09.2024, of the article 14, and consequentially direct the petitioners to do colourable excersize of the respondent No.3 and violation 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of constitution of India respondents to issue letter of award (LOA) and permit the work in respect of Pallipadu -IV sand reach, Pallipadu (V), indukurupeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. lA NO: 1 OF 2a9A Petition under Section 151 CPC is fiied praying that in the in support of the petition, the High circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the 4 respondents forthwith to agreement and -IV sand reach, Pallipadu (V), issue letter of award (LOA) and permitting to enter into issue work order relating to the Pallipadu Indukurupeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Counsel for the Petitioner.SRI. T N M RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 to 5: GP FOR MINES AND e Court made the following COMMON ORDER; geology 1 APHC010481912024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24811/2024 & 23978/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Nagendra Infra AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TN M RANGARAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: WP No.24811 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief; “ to issue writ of Certiorari and Mandamus call for the records relating to the tender Notification No 2544/DLSCSand/NLR/2024 Dt 05.10.2024 and CCTV footage video footage including the statement showing the details of selected members signatures along with DISC members signatures dated 17.10.2024 in the conference hall of collectorate premises and declare the action of the respondent No.3 in not issuing the letter of award LOA to the petitioner herein having selected as a Li bidder for MinagallulV sand reach Minagallu Village Buchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, in spite of qualified as LI bidder as well as winning the lottery drawn and the respondent No.3 issued the tender notification No 2544/DLSCSand/NLR/2024, dated 27.10.2024 pending writ petition Nos 23978 and 24552 of 2024 before this Honourable Court, as illegal, arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable and violation of the G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 02.09.2024 and colourable exercise of the respondent No.3 and violation of the legal duty cast on him and in violation of Article 14, 16, 19(1)(g) 21 and 299 of 2 Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to issue letter of award LOA and permit the petitioner to do work in respect of MinagallulV sand reach Minagallu Village Buchireddypalem Mandal SPSR Nellore District and further set aside the tender notification No 2544/DLSCSand/NLR/2024 dated 27.10.2024 and to pass....” WP No.23978 of 2024 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “ to issue writ of certiorari and mandamus call for the records relating to the tender No 2544/DLSCSand/NLR/2024 Dt 05 10 2024 and CCTV footage and video footage dated 17.10.2024 in Tikkannabhavan in collectorate premises and declare the inaction of the respondent No.3 in not issuing the letter of award LOA to the petitioner herein having recognized as a LI bidder for Pallipadu IV sand reach Pallipadu V.lndukurupeta Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, in spite of qualified as LI bidder as well as winning the lottery draw as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of spirit and object of the G.O.MS.No 49 dated 02.09.2024 colourableexcersize of the respondent No.3 and violation of the article 14, 16, 19(l)(g) and 21 of constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to issue letter of award LOA and permit the petitioners to do work in respect of Pallipadu IV sand reach Pallipadu V Indukurupeta Mandal SPSR Nellore District and to pass....” 2. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 3. Since the facts in ail the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.24811 of 2024 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the State Government issued a notification inviting application for Selection of Contractors for Manual Excavation from open sand reaches, Transportation & Loading of Sand at designated stock yards in SPSR Nellore District and the same was published in Eenadu daily newspaper on 07.10.2024 and specifically mentioned receiving of the applications from 07.10.2024 to 16.10.2024 on or before 5.00 PM. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an application through his General 3 power of attorney holder by name Band! Ramesh Babu by fulfilling the required conditions mentioned in the short tender. The total applications received by the authorities concerned are Number in 12. Some of the applications eliminated after verifying the relevant requisitions as per the tender schedule norms and conditions. Consequently, 3 members are selected in technical bid as well as financial bid as per the norms stipulated in tender schedule. In case of determining the eligible bidder as lower ranked bidder criteria is basing on the Clause-10 (d) of tender schedule. As per this clause, the petitioner herein deemed to be selected lower ranked bidder. Since the petitioner is more than 5 years of experience in a similar line of business, having man power of 60 members skilled/unskilled labour, and the petitioner done sand excavation and transportation works worth of nearly 20 crores. This criteria proved that the petitioner has to declare as a lower ranked bidder among other 2 members. While the matter stood thus, the 4*'’ respondent intervene in the final process offender on 17.10.2024 conducted in meeting in the Conference hall of the Collectorate office premises, SPSR Nellore District. He introduce the new system which is contrary to the tender process i.e., in the presence of all the applicants who were qualified in technical bid and disqualified in price bid and conducted the lottery system with all the 11 members who are technically qualified, in fact 3 members were qualified price bidders out of 11 members. This act of 4*'^respondent is contrary to the G.O.M.S No. 49, dated 02.09.2024 as well as contrary to the tender schedule conditions. The 4th respondent 4 conducted the lottery system among the qualified and disqualified persons on 17.10.2024. However, the petitioner participated in the said lottery draw. In that also, the petitioner selected as a lower ranked bidder. It is stated that the petitioner selected as a LI bidder basing on the qualifications and terms and conditions of the notification and also winner in the lottery drawn as a LI. Inspite of accepted by all the DLSC members, the petitioner as a LI bidder, the 3"'^ respondent having kept the tender records without issuing the letter of Award (LOA) and work orders to the petitioner and now as per the petitioner's information they are trying to cancel the notification No.2544/ DLSC- Sand/NLR/2024, dated 05-10-2024, and issuing the nominal allotment to the 3rd parties with a malafide intention. The illegal excavation of the sand in the subject matter of the notification dated 05-10-2024 clearly proved and established the illegality with the collusion of official respondents with unofficial respondents, who are none other than the henchmen of the 3rd respondent. Hence the writ petition. 5. This Court, vide order, dated 29.10.2024, in WP No.24811 of 2024 while issuing Notice before admission, has granted interim suspension for operation of the tender notification No.2544/DLSC/Sand/NLR/2024, dated 27.10.2024 and the same is extended till the disposal of the writ petition. 6. Heard Sri T.N.M. Ranga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for the respondents. 5 7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petitions, argued that, though the petitioners are rd selected as lower ranked bidders as well as in lottery system also, the 3 respondent has not issued Letter of Award, which is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the illegal excavation of the sand in subject matter of the notification dated 5.10.2024 clearly proved and established the illegality with the collusion of official respondents with unofficial respondents. He further submits that to protect tneir henchmen, the 3^^ respondent intentionally permitted the illegal persons to excavate of the sand in the subject sand reaches. Unless this Court directs the 3''^respondent to issue Letter of Award and permitting the petitioners to do work in respect of subject matter of notifications, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and cause hardship. Therefore, learned counsel prayed to allow these writ petitions by setting aside impugned tender nothlcations. 8. To support his contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a catena of decisions reported in (i)Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer and others\ wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 56, 58,59, 60, 61,62, 69 and 71 held as follows; 56. What can be discerned from the above is that there has been a considerable shift in the scope of judicial review of the court when it comes to contractual disputes where one of the parties is the State or its instrumentalities. In view of the law laid down by this Court in ABL (supra), Joshi Technologies (supra) and in M.P. Power (supra), it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent that the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court was not maintainable and the relief prayed for was rightly declined by the High Court in exercise of its Writ jurisdiction. Where State action is challenged on the ground of being arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the State would be under an obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution and not act in an arbitrary, unfair and AIR 2024 Supreme Court 3784 6 unreasonable manner. This is the constitutional limit of their authority. There is a jural postulate of good faith in business relations and undertakings which is given effect to by preventing arbitrary exercise of powers by the public functionaries in contractual matters with private individuals. With the rise of the Social Service State more and more public-private partnerships continue to emerge, which makes it all the more imperative for the courts to protect the sanctity of such relations. 58. Thus, the demarcation between a private law element and public law element in the context of contractual disputes if any, may be assessed by ascertaining whether the dispute or the controversy pertains to the consensual aspect of the contract or tender in question or not. Judicial review is permissible to prevent arbitrariness of public authorities and to ensure that they do not exceed or abuse their powers in contractual transactions and requires overseeing the administrative power of public authorities to award or cancel contracts or any of its stipulations. 59. Therefore, what can be culled out from the above is that although disputes arising purely out of contracts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction yet keeping in mind the obligation of the State to act fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously, it is now well settled that when contractual power is being used for public purpose, it is certainly amenable to judicial review.60. Now coming to the facts of the case at hand, the appellant has challenged the cancellation of the tender at the instance of the respondent on the ground of being manifestly arbitrary and influenced by extraneous considerations. It is evident from the notice of cancellation dated 07.02.2023, that the tender was not terminated pursuant to any terms of the contract subsisting between the parties, rather, the respondent ‘cancelled’ the tender saying that there was technical fault in the tender that was floated. 61. Thus, the respondent could be said to have exercised powers in its executive capacity as the action to cancel the tender falls outside the purview of the terms of the contract. Hence, it cannot be said that the present matter is purely a contractual dispute. It is also not a breach of contract, as no such breach has been imputed to the appellant in terms of the contract, but rather a plain and simple exercise of the executive powers. 62. Thus, the present dispute even if related to a tender, cannot be termed as a pure contractual dispute, as the dispute involves a public law element. Although there is no discharge of a public function by the respondent towards the appellant yet there is a right to public law action vested in him against the respondent in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution. This is because the exercise of the executive power by it in the contractual domain i.e., the cancelling of the tender carries a corresponding public duty to act in a reasonable and rationale manner. Thus, we find that the writ petition filed by the respondent was maintainable and the relief prayed for could have been considered by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, c. Meaning and True Import of Arbitrariness of State Actions in Contractual Disputes. 69. To ascertain whether an act is arbitrary or not, the court must carefully attend to the facts and the circumstances of the case. It should find out whether the impugned decision is based on any principle. If not, it may unerringly point to arbitrariness. If the act betrays caprice or the mere exhibition of the whim of the authority it would sufficiently bear the insignia of arbitrariness. In this regard supporting an order with a rationale which in the circumstances is found to be reasonable will go a long way to repel a challenge to State action. No doubt the reasons need not in every case be part of the order as such. If there is absence of good faith and the action is actuated with an oblique motive, it could be characterised as being arbitrary. A total non-application of mind without due regard to the rights of the parties and public interest may be a clear indicator of arbitrary action. ' 71. Thus, the question to be answered in such situations is whether the decision was based on valid considerations. This is undertaken to ensure that the reasons assigned were the true motivations behind the action and it involves checking for the presence of any ulterior motives or irrelevant considerations that might have influenced the decision. The approach of the court 7 n, must be to respect the expertise and discretion of administrative authorities while still protecting against arbitrary and capricious actions. (ii) in a case of Krishna District Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd.,Suryaraopet and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others^ wherein this Hon'ble Court held that: 29. The jurisdiction of Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is limited and such power can be exercised only certain circumstances which are enumerated in “West Bengal Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim (Civil Appeal No.5824 of 2019 dated 24.07.2019)’’ wherein the Apex Court reiterated the following principles of judicial review. “It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over an administrative decision. The Court might only examine the decision making process to ascertain whether there was such infirmity in the decision making process, which vitiates the decision and calls for intervention Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a fundamental right or some other legal right or the performance of some legal duty. To pass orders in a writ petition, the High Court would necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the Petitioner, or whether there has been lapse in performance by the Respondents of a legal duty. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct quasijudicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137. If the provision of a statutory Rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari. The sweep of power Under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect.” ^ 2024(5) ALD 397 (AP) 8 30. Yet issuance of Writ of Mandamus is purely discretionary and the same cannot be issued as a matter of course As discussed in the earlier paragraphs, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was ineligible to participate in the tender and rejection of his tender at the stage of technical bid for failure to furnish required documents to the Tender Inviting Authority is sufficient to reject the contention of the petitioner. When, the petitioner is found ineligible on account of alleged failure to meet the requirements of tender conditions, the petitioner cannot be allowed to participate in reverse auctioning. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is disentitled to claim any relief as sought and no direction need be issued to the official respondents, more particularly 2nd respondent, consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 38. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. (iii) In another case reported in Ramand Shyam Company versus State of Haryana and others^ wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Fair Play in action- Must prevail in administrative action. (iv) In another case reported in Fertilizer CorporationKamagar Union (Regd.) Sindri and others v Union of India and others'* wherein, the Apex Court held that Article 32 of the Constitution which guarantees by clause (1) the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part ill, provides by clause (2) that; "The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part". It is manifest that the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Article 32 can be exercised for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III and for no other purpose. Clause (1) as well as clause (2) of Article 32 bring out this point in sharp focus. As contrasted with Article 32. Article 226 (1) of the Constitution provides that: "Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose", (emphasis supplied). The difference in the phraseology of the two Articles brings out the marked difference in the nature and purpose of the right conferred by these Articles. Whereas the right guaranteed by Article 32 can be exercised for the enforcement of ^ (1985) 3 Supreme Court Cases 267 " AIR 1981 Supreme Court 344 9 fundamental rights only, the right conferred by Article 226 can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but for any other purpose. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the above decisions, contended that the writ petitions are maintainable and liable to be allowed as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed for allowing the writ petitions and prayed to dismiss the same. He submits that, counter affidavit has been filed by the 5^'^ respondent. As per counter, he submits that, the 4th respondent conducted lottery system among the qualified and disqualified persons and the petitioner participated in the said lottery draw and the petitioner selected as a lower bidder is contradictory to the Tender Notification dated: 05-10-2024. He submits that. 10. the terms of the invitation of tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract it is well settled law that once the tender is called for a particular work, it cannot be deviated and it has to be conducted as per the Tender conditions imposed before the aforesaid Tender. He further submits that this Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that Rules cannot to be change in the middle of the game. In view of the aforesaid settled law this respondent come to conclusion that not to conduct any lottery among the Bidders and unanimously resolved that to go fresh tender notification. He further submits that, it is well settled law that, while decision is taking by the competent 10 authority in the pubiic interest by evoiving a best process such an auction, a right, if any, any appiicant seeking iease over a Government Land evaporates on its own. He further submits that, the S'” respondent has aiready stated that the petitioner does not have any vested right over the material. This respondent did not declare anybody as L1. It is not correct that the petitioner selected as a Bidder to the Minagallu-IV Sand Reach and it is a fact that the respondents followed the Rules as per the G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 02.09.2024. 12. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner herein selected as LI Bidder basing on the qualification and terms and conditions of the Notification is not true and correct. The DLSC members did not select as LI and the 3rd respondent having kept tender without issuing a letter of award work orders to the petitioner is not true and correct.. The 5^^ respondent has already stated that in view of the vowing to the deficiencies notice in the tender process on 17-10-2024, the District Level Selection Committee unanimously took a decision to cancel the existing tender notice and decided to issue fresh tender notification on 27-10-2024 to give equal opportunity to all the intended bidders. It is alleged that the respondent intend to allot the aforesaid work to the 3rd parties with malafide intention is not true and correct and the said allegation is made to precedes the mind of the Hon ble Court and without making him as a party respondent in the above writ petition. In view of the above reasons, learned Government Pleader prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. ^ p 11 13. Now the only question that remains to be considered is whether the action of the respondent to cancel the tender could be termed as arbitrary? 14. Perused the material on record. 15. It is an admitted fact that the State Government has issued tender notification inviting applications dated 5.10.2024 for selection of Contractors for Manual Excavation from open Sand reaches, Transportation & Loading of sand at designated stock yards in SPSR Nellore District and the same published in Eenadu daily newspaper. The total applications received by the authorities concerned are number in 12. was 16. The contention of the petitioners is that 3 members are selected in technical bid as well as financial bid as per norms stipulated in tender schedule. The petitioners herein are qualified as a technical bid and also price bid and that the petitions have experience in sand field and they have more than 60 skilled and unskilled man power and executed similar works of worth 20 crores. Further, the 4'*^ respondent has conducted lottery system among the qualified and disqualified persons on 17.10.2024. However, the petitioner herein has participated in the said lottery draw and selected as a lower ranked bidder for Minagallu-IV sand reach, Minagallu village, Buchireddypalem Mandal and also for Pallipadu-IV sand reach, Pallipadu, Indukurupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore district. The main contention of the petitioners is that even though the petitioner herein selected as a LI bidder basing on qualifications and conditions of the notifications and also winner in 12 ■V the lottery drawn as a L1, the 3'%espondent instead of issuing the Letter of % Award to the petitioners expressed his opinion to cancel the tender process which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.10.2024. 17. Moreover, as per the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that, in view of the vowing to the deficiencies notice in the tender process on 17-10-2024, the District Level Selection Committee unanimously took a decision to cancel the existing tender notice and decided to issue fresh tender notification on 27-10-2024 to give equal opportunity to all the intended bidder. 18. This court further observed that, in view of urgency the sand required for the purpose and also lot of demand in the State, the District Level Selection Committee issued a fresh Tender Notification on 27.10.20254 inviting applications for Manual Excavation from open sand reaches. Transportation & Loading of Sand at designated Stock yards in the District. In view of the same, the Chairman, DLSC has taken a decision to cancel the subject Tender notice dated 05.10.2024 in view of the power conferred as per the Tender document. At that point of time, DLSC to take a decision in view of the ambiguity in the Tender process exercise his power under Condition 13 of the Tender Notification dated 5.10.2024 to cancel the aforesaid Tender. Therefore, in view of the cancellation of Tender Notification dated 5.10.2024 the cause in the WP No.23978 of 2024 does not survive and it has become infructuous. 13 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.23978 of 2024 is dismissed as infructuous. 20. Insofar as WP No.24811 of 2024 is concerned, this Court is of the view that, the terms of ht invitation of tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny \ because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. In various judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the State as a right o refuse the lowest bidder or any tender provided it tries to get the best person on the best quotation, and the power to be choose is not exercised for any commercial purpose or infringement of Article 14. So, the Award of contract. whether it is by a private contractor or by a public body and the same is In the present case, in view of the essentially a commercial transaction. vowing to the deficiencies notice in the tender process on 17.10.2024, the DISC unanimously took a decision to cancel the existing tender notice and decided to issue fresh tender notification on 27.10.2024 to give equal opportunity to ail the intended bidders. 21. So, in view of the above, this Court is of the view that, as already fresh tender notification has been issued, by the respondents are directed to proceed in accordance with Tender conditions and rules. Therefore, this Court found no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, WP No.24811 of 2024 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14 23. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I .<?iSECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI T N M RANGA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY, Pradesh [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies High Court of Andhra PRK DATED;21/02/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.No.24811 & 23979 of 2024 S 18 MAR 2025 ? ^ . Current iaecuon . ^ DISMISSING THE W.P. No. 24811 WITHOUT COSTS & DISMISSING THE W.P. No. 23979 AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS of 2024 of 2024