ORDER :

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. 

Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, briefed by M/s O.M.R. Law Firm, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner.

2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition as under:

“For the aforementioned reasons, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in issuing tender notifications in 1) SE/O/TPT/APSPDCL Tech / TS-26/2025-26, 2) SE/O/CTR/APSPDCL, Tech/TS- 28/2025-26, 3) /OPN/APSPDCL/ANM/TS.No.36/2025- 26 and 4) SE/OPN/APSPDCL/KDP/TS.No.30/2025-26 for awarding the work of carrying out operation and maintenance of 33/11 KV Sub-Stations without there being clarity about the selection of successful bidders is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of the natural justice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the tender notifications issued by the respondent authorities and pass such order or orders as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The facts in this case as projected by Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, are that the Writ Petitioner has a valid A-Grade Electrical Licence issued by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Andhra Pradesh, for carrying out Operation and Maintenance of 33 kv and above including Watch and Ward, Housekeeping, Gardening, etc.; that the Writ Petitioner is the existing Contractor for maintaining sub-stations in Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (AP TRANSCO); and that he belongs to the OBC community, for which reservation is provided.

4. He further submits that the Superintending Engineer, Operation, APSPDCL, issued a Tender Notification dated 04.09.2025 for carrying out Operation and Maintenance of 5 Nos. 33/11 KV Sub stations at 5 places round the clock on works-contract basis as per the scope of work in Rural Chandragiri Section, in the Rural Division, Tirupati (O) Circle, Tirupati, for a period of 2 years; that the estimated Contract Value is fixed at Rs.1,66,95,889/-; that various Tender conditions are set out in the Tender document; and that Clauses 22.6 and 22.7 (Page No.14 of the Bid document), reads as follows:

22.6 The bidder has to quote +3% to +4% of administration charges, the bid quoted less that +3% and more than +4% will not be accepted and it will be liable to be rejected

22.7 Incase more than one bidder is quoted the same price i.e., L1, the undersigned reserves the right to decide the successful Bidder.

5. It is contended by the Writ Petitioner that Clauses 22.6 and 22.7 are unclear, inasmuch as there is no indication of the procedure that the Respondents would adopt if two or more bidders quote the same price. It is contended that the tenderers are required to quote their administrative charges only between +3% and +4%, which means that the bidders are given leverage to quote only within a narrow range of 1%, inasmuch as the difference between +3% and +4% is only 1%.

6. It is contended by Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel that while the variations among the bids can only be in the range of 1%, a situation can arise where two or more bidders quote the same price and the decision is left to the discretion of the Authorities; and that such discretion without prescribing parameters, is arbitrary and bad in law.

Analysis:

7. Admittedly, the bidder is an existing Contractor. The bid was issued on 04.09.2025 and the last date for receipt of bids is up to 16:00 hours on 20.09.2025. The date and time for opening the Tender is from 17:00 hours on 20.09.2025 itself.

8. While the Tender was issued way back on 04.09.2025 and the last date for submission of bids is 20.09.2025, the present Writ Petition was filed only on 18.09.2025, challenging the Tender conditions in Clauses 22.6 and 22.7, which is just two days before the closure of bids.

9. In the present Writ Petition, the Writ