( 1 ) THE petitioner is a firm undertaking contract works. The third respondent issued a tender notice on 7. 9. 2004 calling for tenders regarding the execution of the work of development of new internal roads, footpaths, parking, landscaping, and providing MS grill etc. , in the premises of A. P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, at an estimated cost of Rs. 2,31,50,395/- and those who are eligible to participate were required to participate in the tender. The petitioner submitted its tender in the office of the third respondent. The technical bids were opened on 25. 10. 2004, though it was scheduled to be opened on 1. 10. 2004 as per the tender notice. The petitioner and the 4th respondent participated in the tender. The petitioner produced all the required documents as per the tender notice including a certificate issued to its concern regarding the experience in electrical works. The third respondent addressed the Central public Works Department seeking information regarding the genuineness of the experience certificate of the petitioner s concern. The Managing Partner of the petitioner firm was asked to get a certificate from CPWD. He took the letter to the third respondent on 26. 10. 2004 and necessary clarification was issued by the CPWD on the same day confirming the genuineness of the experience certificate along with the clarification regarding the cost of the work executed by the petitioner s concern during the year 2000-01 and it was immediately submitted in the office of the third respondent. The petitioner was waiting for a call for opening of price bid. It quoted lesser price than the 4th respondent. The third respondent without waiting for the reply from CPWD opened the price bid on 26. 10. 2004 to favour the 4th respondent, though the petitioner satisfied all the requirements of the tender notice. The petitioner contends the opening of the tender of the 4th respondent by the third respondent and sending the same to the first respondent for approval without opening the price bid of the petitioner is only to favour the 4th respondent. The petitioner further contends that if the bid of the 4th respondent is accepted without considering the bid of the petitioner, the state will be put to loss to a tune of Rs. 5 lakhs. The petitioner therefore, approached this Court through this writ petition seeking to declare that the action of the third respondent in not opening the price bid of the petitioner pursuant to the tender notice dated 7. 10. 2004, is illegal and arbitrary and to direct the third respondent to open the price bid of the petitioner and submit the same to the first respondent for the purpose of consideration and approval along with the price bid of the 4th respondent.

( 2 ) THE third respondent filed a counter- affidavit resisting the writ petition with the following contentions in brief: the second respondent invited the tenders and the third respondent is only a tender receiving authority. The petitioner submitted a tender on e-Procurement on 19. 10. 2004. As per the tender notice, the technical bid was proposed to be opened on 18. 10. 2004 at 12 Noon and the same was opened as per schedule without any postponement. On opening the technical bid, it was noticed that 4 tenderers including the petitioner and the 4th respondent participated. As per the condition of the tender notice, the Contractor or his identified the Sub-Contractor should possess the required valid electrical licence and registration for executing the electrification work and should have executed similar electrical works worth Rs. 6. 75 lakhs in any one financial years from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. The petitioner submitted experience certificate of M/s Universal engineering Company regarding electrical works of value of Rs. 20,09,005/- and rs. 22,97,620/- covering the financial years from 7. 7. 1997 to 10. 9. 1999 and 7. 2. 2000 to 4. 1. 2001 respectively. The certificate did not specify the amount of work executed in one financial