APHC010602322024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the fourth day of December two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.189 of 2025 Between: M/s. Sri Raja Rajeswari Security Services ...Petitioner and The State of A.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. M. R. K. Chakravarthy Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Forests The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J W.P.No.189 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondent authorities, including the curator, in cancelling e-tender vide tender ID.No.762800, dated 02.11.2024 for providing security services to protect Sri Venkateswara Zoological Park, Tirupati for a period of one (1) year from 01.12.2024 to 30.11.2025 vide cancellation proceeding, dated 09.12.2024 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.12.2024 as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith process the tender strictly in accordance with its terms and conditions and allot the contract to the lowest bidder (L1) upon declaring the financial bids which are inconsistent and not in terms and conditions of e-tender including the formats as non-responsive. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: The respondent No.1 floated e-tender on 02.11.2024 to provide security services for the protection of the aforesaid zoo for one year through open tender. The evaluation shall be done item wise. The petitioner filed its technical and financial bid within the time stipulated. The bid was accepted along with certain other agencies, including the respondents firms. Upon downloading the copies of the financial bid submitted by other firms, the petitioner learnt that the financial bids filed by them are not as per the terms and conditions of the tender. The petitioner quoted the price including the minimum wages and statutory benefits payable to security personnel and the taxes payable to the government. The tender notification prescribes a format for filing the financial bid and in the event any of the participants deviates from the 3 BSB, J W.P.No.189 of 2025 format prescribed, it will render the financial bid non-responsive. The payment of minimum wages, E.P.F., E.S.I. are statutory and cannot be done away with by the firms, likewise, payment of taxes is also mandatory. The prescribed format shows that the financial bid should be inclusive of the above items and cannot be left blank. The financial bids quoted by the respondent firms disclosed that they did not quote the service charges properly. Therefore, the petitioner, vide e-mails dated 20.11.2024 and 09.12.2024 brought to the notice of the respondent authorities that those bids cannot be accepted. The respondent curator, instead of declaring those bids as non-responsive, allegedly placed them before the committee on 19.12.2024. The committee unilaterally cancelled the entire tender without putting the petitioner on notice or affording any hearing. Their intention was to float a fresh tender to accommodate the respondent firms. Thus, the action of the respondents is not fair. The respondents cannot accept tender which did not include service charges. As per the office Memorandum No.29(1)/2014-PPD, dated 28.01.2014 of the Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure, P.P. Division Office, the Ministries / Departments were directed to declare the tender unresponsive in absence of any service charge quoted by the tenderer. To protect the interest of the respondent firms, the respondents, for extraneous reasons, cancelled the tender and proposed to call for new tender, instead of declaring the lowest bidder as L1 after declaring the respondent firms as unresponsive. The decision to cancel the tender cannot be excessive and without reasonable grounds. The petitioner who raised complaint was neither put on notice nor was heard before the respondents could cancel the entire tender. As such, this writ petition was filed. 4 BSB, J W.P.No.189 of 2025 3. The respondent No.4 filed counter with averments briefly stated as follows: The tender finalisation committee has examined the rates quoted by the breakup provided in condition No.71 in the tender document and as per the mails received from the petitioner and as per the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, P.P. Division Office, Memorandum No.29(1)/2014-PPD, dated 28.01.2014, it was confirmed that L1 has quoted wrong quotation and there is provision of selection, particularly only in e-procurement portal. Since L1 quoted wrong quotation, there is no provision to select / approve any other bidder except L1. Further, the tender finalisation committee examined the rates quoted by other bidders with the breakup provided in condition No.71 in the tender document. Most of the bidders quoted very less administrative charges near to 0%. After careful examination, the committee decided to cancel the tender for failure to meet the breakup provided in the condition No.71 and other conditions and recommended for re-tender. The power of judicial review is not available to protect the private interest at the cost of public interest to decide contractual disputes. The petitioner who is the tenderer in the present case, with a grievance can seek damages in a civil Court as per the tender condition No.86. Unsuccessful petitioner has only imaginary grievance to make mountain out of molehills. The petitioner is not precluded from participating in the next tender. Moreover, the tender finalisation authority reserves the right to cancel the tender as per the tender condition No.12, 14, 77, 79, 82 and 85. The process of cancellation was done in consultation with the e-procurement authorities and tender finalisation committee as per the above noted conditions. The petitioner, with a mala fide intention is trying to mislead the Court on tender procedure. The petitioner is filing petition after petition before the Court distorting the facts and 5 BSB, J W.P.No.189 of 2025 obstructing the government to process the re-tender. The cancellation order dated 09.12.2024 holds good, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 4. The respondent No.4 filed additional counter affidavit with the averments briefly as follows: After dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2025 in this writ petition, it was decided to issue a fresh tender notification. Accordingly, a fresh notification dated 26.03.2025 was published in Andhra Prabha, Tirupati edition on 04.04.2025. A request was also sent to the Commissioner of Information and Public Relations Department, Vijayawada to publish e- tender notification in all English and Telugu newspapers on or before 15.04.2025, calling for tenders for providing security services for a period of one year from 01.06.2025 to 31.05.2026 through e-procurement platform on 15.04.2025. The technical and financial bid pertaining to the tender was opened in the presence of the members of the tender finalisation committee on 19.05.2025 and found that eight bidders participated. Within them, seven bidders quoted commission / administrative charges in percentage format. The committee decided to conduct meeting with the successful bidders who stood as L1 on 30.05.2025 at 11:00 A.M. for lucky dip towards finalisation as per the condition No.75(ii) of the tender notification. Accordingly, an agreement was concluded between the curator / respondent No.4 and Sri Kalluri Nagaraju, Propreitor, M/s. Srinivasa Detective Security Service, No.20- 5-505, Maruthi Nagar, Korlagunta, Tirupati. The contract was awarded and is already started and security services are being provided as per the agreement conditions. Thus, the writ petition became infructuous. 6 BSB, J W.P.No.189 of 2025 5. The petitioner filed reply affidavit, stating briefly as follows: The contents of the counters show that the respondent authorities accommodated their person and it is sufficient to allow the writ petition, since not more than 1% was quoted towards administrative charges in the fresh tender. Surprisingly, the tender offered by the highest bidder by quoting 2% towards administrative charges was not considered by the respondents. The entire procedure adopted by the respondents is wholly illegal. It is falsely stated in the counters that the petitioner quoted less administrative charges contrary to the tender conditions. The petitioner must be treated equally with the other participants in the tender process. While allowing the tenders of other parties, quoting nil and 1%, the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner alleging that it is quoted less than 1%. The respondents must see that the tender is allotted to the lowest bidder. Contrary to the public interest, the respondents accepted the tender of the bidder who quoted higher price other than that of petitioner. The e-tender vide tender ID.No.762800, dated 02.11.2024 must be confirmed in favour of the petitioner. The averments regarding the lucky dip are all false and they need to be proved. The manner in which the previous tender was closed as persons of the choice of the respondents could not succeed and the way the tender was allotted to an inexperienced agency contrary to the tender conditions and by way of lucky dip shows the mala fides of the respondents. The petitioner must be adequately compensated by the respondents in the event the prayer in the writ petition could not be allowed on the ground of efflux of time. 6. The main contention of the petitioner is that the tender of (L1) ought not to have been treated as (L1) tender since it has not complied with the mandatory requirement of quoting minimum amount of 7 BSB, J W.P.No.189 of 2025 administrative charges in view of office memorandum No.29(1)/2014- PPD, dated 28.01.2014 of the Government of India and thereby, the sole offer filed by the petitioner ought to have been accepted as minimum amount of administrative charges were quoted by the petitioner. Therefore, he further contended that the process by which the total tender activity has been cancelled is illegal and the fact that the petitioner has not participated in the subsequent tender event has no bearing as the offer of the petitioner is already known and no more confidential. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some heavy costs are to be imposed against the respondents by setting aside the tender process which was cancelled. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Subhash Projects and Marketing Ltd. Vs. W.B. Power Development Corporation Ltd. and others1. He vehemently contended that the computer has accepted the offers of (L1) is not a ground to treat it as (L1) offer and that the technical support should be upgraded to reject the offer which does not comply the mandatory requirements, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests contended that the earlier tender process had been cancelled and therefore, the petitioner cannot raise any objection and that the petitioner failed to participate in the subsequent tender bid and therefore, the petition is not maintainable as the cause of action does not survive. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his submission that the process of acceptance of offer itself is erroneous and therefore, 1 AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 116::2005 AIR SCW 5579 8 BSB, J W.P.No.189 of 2025 subsequent cancellation does not render the process invalid and thereby, the petitioner shall be granted relief and also some amount of compensation or some exemplary costs. 9. There is no dispute about the requirement of quoting minimum surcharge as per the memo, dated 28.01.2014. As can be seen from the record, (L1) bidder has not quoted any amount. Therefore, treating the offer without such requirement as (L1) is improper. In the absence of such offer, the offer of the petitioner could have been (L1) bid and the sole bid. As such, the subsequent cancellation of the process on any other ground is not correct. As a result, the petitioner lost the opportunity to secure the contract. The objection raised by the petitioner was very much known to the respondents, yet no decision has been taken on the objection raised by the petitioner through e-mails. Under these circumstances, merely because the petitioner has not participated in the auction held subsequent to cancellation of the subject tender process, no justification can be shown in support of the cancellation. As such, there is merit in the contention of the petitioner. Since the subsequent tender process has concluded, though the relief sought by the petitioner is granted, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the damage done to the petitioner may be duly compensated by granting lump sum amount of compensation, instead of unsettling the process taken consequent upon cancellation of the subject tender. 10. The next consideration is regarding the costs / compensation to the petitioner. 11. It is pertinent to refer the relevant portion of the decision in M/s. Subhash Projects (1 supra) relied on by the petitioner. 9 BSB, J W.P.No.189 of 2025 “12. Thus, on a reappraisal of the relevant materials in the light of the submissions before us, we are not satisfied that any interference is called for with the judgment of the Division Bench in these appeals. Since we are inclined to agree with the conclusion of the Division Bench that the award of the contract to Subhash Projects was not legal, we see no reason to interfere with the course adopted by the Division Bench in the matter of awarding compensation to L & T payable by Subhash Projects. We also find the sum fixed reasonable and to the advantage of Subhash Projects. We are not inclined to entertain the plea of L & T in its appeal that the award of the contract to Subhash Projects itself must be set aside and the contract directed to be awarded to L & T or to order a fresh tender to be invited for the work. The adopting of such a course would be counter productive in the circumstances, considering the nature of the project and the steps that had already been taken and the completion of the project itself during the pendency of these appeals.” 12. In view of the finding in the present case in the above paragraph, some amount of compensation shall be directed to be paid for the illegality in the process adopted by the respondents. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the action of the respondents in cancelling the e-tender vide Tender ID No.768200, dated 02.11.2024, for providing security services to protect Sri Venkateswara Zoological Park, Tirupathi for a period of one (01) year from 01.12.2024 to 30.11.2025 vide cancellation dated 09.12.2024 10 BSB, J W.P.No.189 of 2025 communicated to the petitioner vide letter, dated 12.12.2024, is illegal. However, in view of the above discussion, the consequential proceedings are not interfered with, by compensating the petitioner, directing the respondents to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J 04.12.2025 NSM / RAR