IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2020 OF 2025 Between; P. Raj Kumar, S/o. Nagalakshmaiah Polisetty, Aged about 44 years Proprietor, Investor Godown and H & T Contractor, R/o. H.N0.77-16B-4’ Venkata Chalapathi Nagar, VTC Kallur, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation, Rep By Its Managing Director, Head Office Stalin Corporate Building, 2""^ No 55-17-3, C-13, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada, NTR District. Floor, Dd- 2. The General Manager, AP State Warehousing Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director, Head Office Stalin Corporate Building 2'’'^ Floor D.No. 55-17-3, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada, NTR District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue may a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the rejection of the petitioner's bid (Tender ID 775248) on the ground of non-attestation of the PAN copy as illegal arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may direct the respondent officials to reconsider the 775248) by treating the alleged defect as curable, granting the petitioner an opportunity to rectify the same, and Grant any other relief deemed appropriate in the interest of Justice. petitioners bid (Tender ID lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents staying the allocation of work successful bidder in respect SWC/B4/2470/H&T/Tenders/2023 Date: 20.12.2024 to the of Tender bearing No. inviting for the tenders for “Appointment of Loading/Unloading /Handling and Transport Contractor for Food Grains at State Warehouse Kurnool (Own)and Railhead, Kurnool” during pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S. V. RUTHVIK Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A. RAJENDRA BABU, SC FOR APWHC The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010039772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) m [3329] THURSDAY JHE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2020/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER P Raj Kumar AND The Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S VRUTHVIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.ARAJENDRA BABU The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2020/2025 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the tender notice dated 20.12.2024 the petitioner submitted his bid/tender on 07.01.2025. While considering the tenders, the respondents rejected the tender/bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner submitted a copy of the PAN card without notary, which is not a mandatory criteria. He further submits that the other two tenderers were also disqualified at the technical bid stage on the ground that either they did not submit GST clearance certificate or not submitted any notarized documents. He further submits that three tenderers were disqualified out of four tenderers and there remains only one tenderer. As such the bid cannot be finalized in respect of the sole tenderer without calling tenders afresh, which is contrary to the settled preposition of law. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that as per the tender notification four tenderers were submitted their respective bids to the respondents. Out of which, three were disqualified at the technical bid stage and only one was qualified. 3 \ moreover, the offer of the qualified person is within the reasonable price as per the tender document. Since the price offered by the tenderer is within the below 10% of the rate fixed by the respondent, there is no need of calling for fresh tenders. If the offer of the tenderer is more than 30% as per the tender conditions certainly the tendering authority is under the obligation to issue tender afresh. He further submits that at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, a letter of selection was issued to the successful bidder on 28.01.2025 itself and an agreement was also entered with the successful bidder. In view of the same, interference of this Court is contrary to the settled preposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and in view of the finalization of the tender and an agreement was also entered. In the absence of any arbitrariness or malafideness on the part of the respondents as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, since it is a settled preposition this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of awarding of tender afresh. Hence the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' SECTION OFFICER To 1. One CC to Sri S. V. Ruthvik, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri A. Rajendra Babu, SC for APWHC [OPUC] 3. Three C.D. Copies Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:30/01/2025 ORDER ^OF WP.No.2020 of 2025 O' 13: 2 5 FEB 2C25 ^ Current Section . ^ DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS