ORDER :

A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.

1. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are basically challenging the tender process and award of contracts on the ground that the respondent Corporation has violated the tender conditions.

2. W.P. No. 17934 of 2020

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the 3rd respondent-Additional Collector (Civil Supplies) at Nagarkurnool Nagarkurnool District, in opening financial bids prior to opening and scrutinizing of Technical bids in respect of E-tender issued by the 2nd respondent on 15.09.2020 vide No. Mktg/Paddy Tenders/2020 for appointment of Contractors for transportation of Paddy and Gunnies and declaring the lowest bidder in Financial Bids as successful bidder, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same.

It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the impugned tender notification, the petitioner applied for tender work, but the respondent-Corporation without opening the technical bid, opened the financial bid and awarded the contract to L1, who does not have his own vehicles and the vehicles shown in his tender form are not owned by him and that L1 bidder is ineligible to get the contract, but he was awarded with the tender work.

Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stating that unless the technical bid is opened, they will not open the financial bid and that they have opened the technical bid on 25.09.2020 at about 1.15 p.m and after completion of evaluation, financial bid was opened at 4.06 pm. The successful bidder filed a lease deed from its original owner, as such, any disputes between the owner and the successful bidder would workout in appropriate forum. It is stated that the petitioner quoted 79% and the lowest successful bidder quoted 49%.

Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner denying the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer i.e., L1 after opening of both the technical and financial bids. He submits that the person in whose favour contract was awarded has not been made party to the writ petition.

3. W.P. No. 19708 of 2020

This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in granting Contract Tender in favour of 5th respondent for transportation of paddy and gunnies as entrusted by the 2nd respondent under Paddy Procurement Operations from various paddy purchase centers for the period from 01.10.2020 to 30.09.2021, even though the 5th respondent has violated the rules and guidelines issued for Tenders, in violation of clause 7(e) of the tender conditions and for consequential directions.

It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the e-notification issued by the 3rd respondent dated 16.09.2020, the petitioner and 5th respondent applied to the same. The petitioner came to know that the representative of 5th respondent already filed tender for Stage-2, Hayathnagar on 22.09.2020 on behalf of 6th respondent, even though he is not eligible to file a tender as per Clause No. 7(e) of Annexure-V of terms and conditions of the Tender. Even though the petitioner filed representation dated 26.09.2020, the same has not been considered by the respondents 2 and 3.

The 4th respondent filed counter denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stating that they have followed the terms and conditions of the tender notification, in conducting the tender process.

4. W.P. Nos. 20820 of 2020

This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing Lr. No. Mktg/M2/336/PTC/KMC 2020-21, dated 31.10.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2020 a