B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner s Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Veterinary Medicines and has registered itself as a Small Scale Industry with the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is one of the Rate contract supplier of Veterinary medicine. The petitioner claims that it has a net-work of selling Veterinary medicine outside the State also, throughout country. There has been never any complaint against the quality of standard of the Veterinary medicine supplied by the petitioner is the claim of the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Andhra Pradesh appears to have evolved the system of maintaining a panel of Rate Contract supplier every year for the purpose of purchasing veterinary medicine and Therapeutics at the specified rates subject to such terms and conditions specified in the contract. The second respondent herein through tender notification in the newspapers invited tenders for registration of rate contract supplier for the year 1997-98. The last date for submission of tenders was 28-4-1997. According to the notification, the tender should consist of technical bid (dealing with the technical evaluation) and a price bid (financial bid ). The financial bid should indicate the rates in respect of each given medicine. The financial bid of those tenderers alone who qualify the technical bid will be considered for finalisation of rate contract. The tenderers are required to furnish documentary evidence wherever necessary and all the documents/enclosures/ literature etc. have to be furnished along with technical bids (Part I of the tender) only. Tenderers qualification and eligibility to financial bids (Part II of the tenders) will exclusively depend on the scrutiny of the documents enclosed to technical bids. The financial bid shall consist of only details of rates offered. The petitioner having purchased the tender form has submitted the same on 28-4-1997. The tenders were opened by the second respondent on 30-4-1997 in the presence of representatives of the tenderers. The financial bid were to be opened on 16-5-1997 and the financial bid of the petitioner was opened along with other tenderers on 16-5-1997 in the presence of the representative of the petitioner s Company. Obviously the technical bid of the petitioner was found valid. It is asserted by the petitioner that it is folly qualified for being considered for grant of the rate contract for the present year, as the petitioner has fulfilled all the requirements for being analysed as a rate contract supplier for supply sale of Veterinary products for the year 1997-98. The financial bids were opened on 16-5-1997 and finalisation of the tenders did not take place. The matter was postponed for consideration. The petitioner filed the writ petition apprehending that the second respondent under the instructions of the first respondent was likely to ignore the tender submitted by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that without passing any order and disclosing the reason for non-consideration of his tender, the Company is being eliminated from consideration for the purpose of awarding the contract. The petitioner suspects that such a decision was taken by the respondents as a measure of victimisation for the petitioner, has approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 1748 of 1996 for a direction seeking payment of the value of the medicine supplied by the Company during October, 1994. Inspite of the directions in the said writ petition, the respondents have dis-obeyed the interim order passed by this Court and the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Case No. 184 and 185 of 1996 against the respondents. It is on account of the malice the respondents have chosen to eliminate the petitioner from consideration. The action of the respondents in eliminating the petitioner from consideration is not only unfair but arbitrary. It is further submitted that there is no reason whatsoever on the part of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document