V. Ravindra s/o Venkaiah v. The Southern Power Distribution
WP/9063/2014 · 2026-09-20
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11107 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11107 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010189172014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9063 OF 2014 Between:
1. V. Ravindra s/o Venkaiah, Occ : Special Class Contractor, R/o H No 20-3- 129/8, Mythri Nilayam Siva Jyothi Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District.. ...Petitioner AND
1. The Southern Power Distribution, Company of A.P. Ltd., rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Tirupati, Chittoor District
2. The Chief General Manager Operation, The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tirupati, Chittoor District
3. The Chief General Manager PMM IPC, The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tirupati, Chittoor District
4. A V Mohan Reddy s/o Yemula Reddy, Occ : Contractor, R/o Flat No 108, Shanti Apartment, Opp Shivalayam, B.N. Colony, Kadapa, Kadapa 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 may be pleased toto issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS (a) call for the records relating to and pertaining to E- procurement notice IFB No SPWT-43/13/14 (CMD Bungalow at Tirupati)
2
dated 5.2.2014 in rejecting the tender of the petitioner though he quoted 7.27% less i.e., Rs.27,22,692.57 (out of the total ' work value of Rs.32,74,51,067/-) and allotting the tender work in favour of the 4th respondent though he quoted 1.27% less i.e., Rs.4,75,639.98 on the alleged ground of solvency certificate submitted by the petitioner is not sufficient (though the petitioner submitted the solvency certificate by following the conditions as laid down in the Tender Notice) and allotted the work in favour of the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, apart from contrary to their terms and conditions laid down in the tender notice dated 5.2.2014 and hence the same is liable to be set aside; and (b) consequently direct the respondents to declare the petitioner is alone successful tenderer for execution of work under E-procurement IFB No SPWT-43/ 13/ 14 (CMD Bungalow at Tirupati) dated 5.2.2014 and allot the work to the petitioner by taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner is the lowest tenderer i.e., 7.27% quoted less for execution of the work IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 11319 OF 2014 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 to suspend the work allotted to the 4th respondent for execution of the under E- procurement IFB No. SPWT-43/13/14 (CMD Bungalow at Tirupati) dated
5.2.2014.
IA NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP 11538 OF 2014 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 to permit the petitiorier to amend. the main prayer by incorporating the impugned Lr. No. CGM/P&MM&IPC./SPDCL/TPT/CIVIL/F.No.Doc./D.No. 720/14 Dt: 22.03.2014 "after the words of and before the words of in favour of 4th Respondent" i.e., (a) part of the Writ Prayer (a) call for the records relating to and pertaining to E-procurement notice IFB No SPWT-43/13/14 (CMD
3
Bungalow at Tirupati) dated 5.2.2014 in rejecting the tender of the petitioner though he quoted 7.27% less i.e., Rs.27,22,692.57 (out of the total work value of Rs.32,74,51,067/-) and allotting the tender work in favour of the 4th respondent though he quoted 1.27% less i.e., Rs.4,75,639.98 on the alleged ground of solvency certificate submitted by the petitioner is not sufficient (though the petitioner submitted the solvency certificate by following the conditions as laid down in the Tender Notice) and issued the impugned allotment order issued by 3n1 respondent vide impugned Lr. No. CGM/P&MM861PC./SPDCL/TPT/ CIVIL/F No.Doc./D. No. 720/14 Dt: 22.03.2014 in favour of the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, apart from contrary to their terms and conditions laid down in the tender notice dated 5.2.2014 and hence the same is liable to be set aside; (b) consequently direct the respondents to declare the petitioner is alone successful tenderer for execution of work under E-procurement IFB No SPWT43/ 13 /14 (CMD Bungalow at Tirupati) dated 5.2.2014 and allot the work to the petitioner by taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner is the lowest tenderer i.e., 7.27% quoted less for execution of the work IA NO: 3 OF 2014(WPMP 11539 OF 2014 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 suspend the impugned letter No. CGM/P&MM&IPC.
SPDCL/TPT/CIVIL/FNo.Doc./D. No.720/14 Dt: 22.03.2014 issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of 4th respondent pending disposal of the W.P. in interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: P VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents:V RAVINDER RAO The Court made the following order:
4
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9063 OF 2014 ORDER:-
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the rejection of the bid submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the tender notice dated 05.02.2014. 2. None appeared for the petitioner. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the period of tender itself is for twelve months and now twelve years have lapsed. Hence, no cause survives for further adjudication in this matter and the Writ Petition becomes infructuous. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
Date:21.09.2026 TPS
5
35 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 9063 OF 2014
Date:21.09.2026 TPS