ORDER :

This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader for Finance, Government Pleader for Energy, Sri Y.Nagireddy represented by Sri Siva Rama Krishna and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, for the unofficial respondents.

The petitioner before this Court is questioning the action of respondent No.3 in awarding a tender/contract in favour of respondent No.5 for spot billing works.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in a tender for the year, 2021 also, the work was awarded to the 5th respondent and this was questioned in W.P.No.18539 of 2020. An interim order was also passed, which is not complied with leading to a contempt also. A second tender dated 04.08.2021 was also floated. The petitioner participated in it. However, this tender was cancelled by the respondent No.3 without assigning any reasons. Thereafter, a new tender dated 24.08.2021 was floated. According to the petitioner’s counsel, a new condition was introduced, wherein they stated that bidders who quoted below 0% and 5% on administrative charges will be treated as non-responsive. The petitioner participated in this tender also. All the bidders were asked to participate in a reverse auction on 31.08.2021. All the bidders participated in the same. But, thereafter, the results of the bidding were not announced and on 14.09.2021, it is informed to everybody that the work was awarded to responding No.5. This is questioned in the Writ petition.

It is alleged that the reverse tendering is not according to the Government Orders on the subject. It is also stated that since the petitioner quoted 0% for the tender work and did not charge any profit, going in for reversing tendering is also not correct. It is also argued that the tender conditions have been changed to suit 5th respondent.

For the answering respondents, Sri Siva Rama Krishna argued on behalf of Sri Y.Nagireddy. He states that this is a peculiar case where a short tender notice dated 23.08. 2021 was floated to attend to the spot billing works. It was the found on the opening of the tenders that all the bidders quoted 0% on administrative charges and all the bidders stood as L.1. Even during the reverse tendering, the same situation was there. Therefore, in this peculiar circumstances, respondent No.5 was awarded the work. Learned counsel also relies upon the case law, which is mentioned in the counter affidavit stating that in the absence of any mala fides and bias being proved, the Courts, in particular, the writ courts should sparingly involve themselves and grant interim orders in matters of tender. According to him, relying upon the case law, which he is cited, even if there are minor deviations in the absence of mala fides, the Court should not interfere.

In the case on hand, it is submitted that all the bidders were afforded clear opportunity. Petitioner also participated in the tender process, but is now questioning the amendment of clause, which deals with 0% to 5% administrative charges. As per the counsel, the petitioner’s conduct estops him. The petitioner himself quoted for these rates and is raising an issue about the reverse tendering after participating in the same. Learned standing counsel submits that there is neither mala fides nor any other motive in awarding the work to respondent No.5. Basing on the past performance and in view of the urgency involved, the work was awarded to respondent No.5. It is also submitted that the substantial period is also expired and the contract would also come to an end by 31.08.2022.

For the 5th respondent, Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri appears and argues the matter. He also submits that once the petitioner participated in the tender dated 21.08.2021 he cannot questioned the terms. The same argument is repeated in so far as reverse tendering is concerned since the petitioner also participated in the reverse tendering. Learned counsel submits that in view of the peculiar fact, namely that all the tenders were L.1, the respondents to use