Government must exercise discretion in contract awarding fairly and rationally, without arbitrary discrimination against bidders.

1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the first respondent Vice - Chairman and Managing Director, A. P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad rejecting the petitioner's tender and accepting the one submitted by the second respondent, as illegal, null and void.

2. Tenders were invited by the first respondent from Transport Contractors for transport of foodgrains, pulses etc. from various places in the Karimnagar District within the same District or outside the District. The petitioner as also five others including the second respondent submitted the tenders in the form and manner indicated in the tender notice dated 11-1-1984.

3. The petitioner quoted the rates for the transportation of foodgrains, pulses etc. per metric tonne per Kilometre as mentioned below in the relevant column of the tender form:

3. Similarly the second respondent quoted the rates as follows:

4. The first respondent considered the tenders of all the six tenderers and accepted the tender of the second respondent in preference to the petitioner and others. The petitioner alleged that, taking into consideration the rates quoted by him for various distances of four categories mentioned in the tender form as shown above work out to be four paise less per kilometre than the second respondent and as such the order of acceptance of the tender of the second respondent passed by the first respondent is illegal, null and void.

5. The first contention raised by Shri K. Pratap Reddy, on behalf of the petitioner is that the acceptance by the first respondent of the tender submitted by the second respondent in spite of the total rates quoted by the second respondent being higher than of the petitioner is in contravention of the terms and conditions contained in the form of tender. Secondly it is contended that the rejection of the tender of the petitioner offends against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and amounts to illegal discrimination contrary to Art.14 of the Constitution.

6. The case of the petitioner is that he quoted lowest rate for the two slabs as compared to the rates quoted by the second respondent, equal in one slab and that taking into consideration all the ranges he quoted four paise less per Kilometre than the second respondent. Whereas the case of the first respondent is that as per the requirement plan prepared up to November, 1983 for the District of Karimnagar, 7000 M.Ts. of foodgrains are planned to be transported within the distance of 100 Kms. only within the District. The transport outside the District arises only in case there is a procurement over and above the requirement of the District. As at present the procurement is being done for consumption within the 3. Similarly the second respondent quoted the rates as follows:
Karimnagar District itself, the question of moving the procured rice outside the District does not arise. Therefore, in deciding as to which is the lowest tender the first respondent has taken into account only the rates quoted by the tenderers for slab No. 1 only. There was, therefore, no need at all to consider the rates quoted for other slabs. On so considering, the rates quoted by the second respondent were found to be lower than that quoted by the petitioner and are beneficial and less expensive for the Corporation. Therefore, the tender of the second respondent being the lowest has been accepted. The allegation that the petitioner quoted four paise less per Kilometre than the second respondent is misleading and not correct. The question of taking into consideration the rates quoted for all ranges does not arise at all in deciding the lowest r