The formulation of tender conditions falls within the administrative domain of the authority, and judicial review is limited to preventing arbitrariness or favoritism. The courts cannot interfere with the terms and conditions of the tender unless they are found to be malicious, unreasonable, or discriminatory.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Energy for the 1st respondent and Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of PMR Associates which is an unregistered firm. Claiming to be qualified and willing to apply for tender, issued by the 3rd respondent-the Superintendent Engineer (SE), Kadapa Operation Circle, Andhra Pradesh State Power Distribution Corporation Limited (for short, "APSPDCL"), Kadapa pursuant to the tender invitation vide a specification REV.No.15/2022-23 of Superintending Engineer Operation/Kadapa inviting for tenders for Scanning, Printing and Serving of Spot bills in consumer premises LT Category I, Category II and Category IV (Excluding High Value, Agriculture Services) with GPRS enabled Spot Billing Machines with/without IR/IRDA Port readings wherever IRDA port compatible meters existing indifferent EROs existing in Kadapa District for the period from 1/4/2023 to 31/3/2024, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of Mandamus, for declaration that is the condition No.2 and condition No.19 in the tender invitation notice are illegal and arbitrary which deserve to be quashed.

3. Condition No.2 of the tender invitation notice is as follows:

"2. Rates: The rates shall be quoted in the price schedule in the price bid only.

b) Supervision Charges (Supervision Charges) must 0% to 6.5% only (not more than 6.50% on base rate), Minus quoted bids are not acceptable.

4. Condition No.19 of the tender invitation notice is as follows:

"The tenders shall be submitted by taking each Electricity Revenue Office (ERO) separately as a unit. Non-quoting of rates will lead to rejection of tender. The rate shall be quoted as per the specification mentioned in the schedule. The bidders will not be awarded Spot Billing work of more than one(1) Electricity Revenue Office (ERO) anywhere in APSPDCL area."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tender Condition No.2 that the participants shall quote supervision charges at 0% minimum and 6.5% maximum with further stipulation that minus quoted bids are not acceptable, would result in excessive discretion to the 3rd respondent to be acted arbitrarily and is not in the interest either of the 3rd respondent or the public at large. It violates the principle of equal treatment.

6. With respect to the tender Condition No.19, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by taking each Electricity Revenue Office (ERO) separately as a unit, the bidders will not be awarded a spot work of more than one ERO anywhere in APEPDCL area. The same person/agency cannot be awarded work in multiple ERO(s). Consequently, imposition of such condition is onerous which is violative of principles of fairness and equality in public procurement infringing fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in previous tender invitations there were either no such condition or not in the same terms but this time such conditions are imposed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka and others,(2012) 8 SCC 216.

9. Learned standing counsel for APSPDCL, submitted that the tender conditions are not arbitrary and do not violate the principles of equality. Every person willing to participate subject to fulfilment of the eligibility criteria, can participate, complying with the conditions which are applicable equally, to all. He further submitted that imposition of the tender conditions fall in the domain of the administrative/executive action of the Authority, in which this Court ordinarily do not interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The present is not a case for such