Challa Kodanda Ram, J.

1. These two writ petitions involve principally same question of law and arising from the same set of facts. The petitioner in W.P. No. 30105 of 2016, is also the Proprietrix of the concern in W.P. No. 1508 of 2017. Sri Kalahastheeswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Sri Kalahasthi (hereinafter referred to as "Temple") for convenience sake. In W.P. No. 30105 of 2016, circular dated 10.03.2016, in stipulating the earnest money deposit as 10% of the value of the goods to be procured by the temples under its administrative control, is questioned apart from the tender notification dated 14.8.2016. The yet another relief claimed is also to declare that the 5th respondent in W.P. No. 30105 of 2016, is not competent to hold the post of Executive Officer of the temple. W.P. No. 1508 of 2017 is filed by a propriety concern, represented by its Proprietor questioning tender notification dated 04.01.2017. It may be noted that the petitioner in W.P. No. 30105 of 2016, is the proprietor of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1508 of 2017. In both the writ petitions, the common question is the reasonableness of the fixation of earnest money deposit as 10% of the tender value and whether the same is arbitrary, excessive and illegal. It is conceded by the petitioners that so far as the incompetency of the 5th respondent in W.P. No. 30105 of 2016, is concerned, this writ petition no longer survives on account of subsequent developments.

2. It is the contention of the petitioners as pleaded in the affidavit and as articulated by the learned senior counsel Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu and Sri N. Subba Rao that all through the years the temple was procuring various items like sugar, rice, pooja items, groundnut, Udar dal and horse gram, Bio-degradable covers, different kinds of fruits and various other provisions from traders were being procured under a single tender and the earnest money that was being stipulated never exceeded Rs. 2,00,000/- at any point. In the impugned tenders, Rs. 10,00,000/- for each of the items was fixed as E.M.D with the result a tenderer who is willing to supply all the items would be required to provide earnest money of about Rs. 70,00,000/- to Rs. 1.3 crores. This stipulation of E.M.D at 10% of the proposed contract value is totally arbitrary, unreasonable and there is no rational and the same is purely invented by the respondents to eliminate and prevent the small traders from participating in the tendering process. The elimination of competition would only benefit the traders with huge capital and thereby eliminating the competition to their sole benefit. There is no basis for fixing 10% of the tender value as E.M.D. Learned counsel while placing reliance on the tender notification dated 14.08.2016, issued by the 3rd respondent temple wherein the E.M.D has been fixed at 10% of the tender value contended that the different yardstick is being followed by the temple in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for procuring the rice, the temple authority had specified that a particular brand of rice to be supplied and if a particular brand is required, there would be no requirement for calling of the tenders as the tendering authority as well directly would approach the original producer and procure the same.

3. On the other hand, Sri A. Sreekanth Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent temple, contends that the temple has no discretion other than to follow the circular issued by the Commissioner and it is not the 3rd respondent temple concern as to why the other temples are not following the circular. The reasons and the circumstances under which the other temples are not following the circular by fixing the EMD amount less than as stipulated are not known to the temple and at any rate the adherence of the instructions issued by the superiors cannot be found fault. He further contends that on account of the experience gained over the years the temple has cons