P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Petitioner company is engaged in construction activity and has executed number of works in various States in India and works belonging to Central Government. It is registered as special class contractor in Andhra Pradesh i.e., eligible to do work of above Rs. 10 crores. Vide G.O. Rt. No. 329, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Roads.III) Department, dated 04.06.2016, Government accorded administrative sanction for the work of 'construction of High level Bridge across river Vamsadhara connecting Vanitamandalam village in Polaki Mandal to Shalihundam Tourist place in Srikakulam district for an amount of Rs. 7,200 lakhs. The 3rd respondent herein issued a tender notification No. NIT No. 3166/EPC/DCE(R)/EE(R)/DEE-II/AEE-II/2016, dt. 19.09.2016. Petitioner is aggrieved by the tender conditions with regard to technical criteria, such as, the bidder as Prime Contractor should have completed at least one similar bridge work not costing less than Rs. 20.00 crores., i.e., construction of a Vehicular Road Bridge on Pile foundations with PSC superstructure adopting precast girder launching technique in superstructure across drains, canals, creeks or rivers during the last five financial years updated by giving 10% simple weightage per year to bring it to 2016-17 price level and having experience in constructions on EPC/Turnkey system during the last five financial years. Contending that these are unreasonable restrictions, petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent on 04.10.2016. As there was no response from the department, he made a further representation on 15.10.2016. Again a detailed representation was made to the Hon'ble Minister for Transport, Roads and Buildings Department on 15.10.2016 and a copy was given to the 2nd respondent on the same day. Alleging that there is no reply to his representation and challenging unreasonable restrictions, this writ petition is filed. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings (AP) for respondents and with their consent the writ petition is disposed of finally.

2.1. Sri Manohar Reddy submitted that G.O. Ms. No. 94, Irrigation and CAD (PW-COD) Department, dated 01.07.2003 contains detailed instructions for preparation of realistic estimates, with regard to qualification criteria to be fixed for awarding Government contracts, the bid capacity etc. The said conditions, mentioned in the G.O., are being followed in respect of all the contracts including EPC contract by all departments of the Government for awarding civil engineering works including R and B department. The eligibility criteria prescribed in the tender notification is contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 94, dated 01.07.2003. He would contend that there is no justification on the part of 2nd and 3rd respondents in prescribing different technical criteria and also stating that the bids of the joint venture are not acceptable. A uniform procedure has to be followed in fixing the eligibility criteria for all the works in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The eligibility conditions prescribed in the present tender are entirely different from criteria fixed in the work of improvement to road from Nuvvalarevu to Manchineellapeta from Km 0/0 to 2/0 including construction of HLB across salt creek in KM 1/0 with a linear water way of 420 meters in Srikakulam District, made in November, 2015. No rationale in prescribing the technical qualification and financial criteria. In similar nature of works called by the other departments in the State of Andhra Pradesh including R and B department in other districts, nowhere such a condition is prescribed. Even the Central Government Departments i.e., Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and National Highway Authority have not prescribed the requirement of experience in EPC work.

2.2. He would submit that the terms of contract are tailer made to suit select bidders and paving way for them to form a ring and thereby t