Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Duddu Devadanam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 3 January, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.42369 of 2022
JUDGMENT:-
1. Heard Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri
G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri M.Manohar
Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.
3 and 4.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed for the following relief:-
"For the reasons stated, it is therefore prayed that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate
writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature
of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4 th
respondent in passing the Resolution Nos.849 and 850
dated 31.11.2022 held in its General Council Meeting
cancelled the bid filed by the petition in respect of the
works for inner and outer painting to the Municipal Office
situated in Ward No.12 and consequential action of the 3rd
respondent in issuing the E-procurement Tender Notice
No.18/2022-23/JTO, dated 16.12.2022 thereby calling
for fresh tender for the works of inner and outer painting
to the Municipal Office situated in Ward No.12, Chirala
Town and Municipality as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and
in contravention of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh
Municipalities Act, 1965 and rules framed there under
and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India
and consequently set aside the Resolution Nos.849 and
850 dated 31.11.2022 passed by the 4th respondent and
E-procurement Tender Notice No.18/2022-23/JTO dated
16.12.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent and further
direct the respondents to approve the bid submitted by
this petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
3. On 30.12.2022, in view of the submission advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the Council's Resolution
No.849, cancelling the petitioner's tender is dated 31.11.2022,
which makes the Resolution doubtful as in the month of
November, there is no 31st date, this Court granted time to the
learned Standing Counsel to place the copy of the Council's
Resolution.
4. Sri G.Naresh Kumar, learned counsel representing the
respondent Nos.3 and 4, on the basis of written instructions
submits that the Council passed Resolution Nos.849 and 850
on 30.11.2022 and it was due to the inadvertent clerical
mistake that the date 31.11.2022 was typed. He submits that
in fact Resolutions were passed on 30.11.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not submit as to
what right the petitioner has got for acceptance of tender even if
he was the only eligible tenderer as submitted, except the
submission that his tender should have been accepted.
6. In Laxmikant and others vs. Satyawan and others1,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that State or the authority
which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution is not bound to accept the highest tender or
bid. The right of the highest bidder has to be examined in
context with the different conditions under which such auction
is held.
7. Any statutory provision that the petitioner being the only
eligible tenderer had the right for acceptance of tender has not
been placed before this Court.
8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any
pending, shall also stand closed.
__________________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
Date: 03.01.2023
SCS
(1996) 4 SCC 208
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.42369 of 2022
Date: 03.01.2023
Scs
