Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vikram Book Links Private Limited vs The State Of Ap on 6 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY
TWOTHOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 5435 OF 2025
Between:
1. M/s. Vikram Book Links Private Limited, Rep.by. its Authorised
Representative, CIN. U22219AP2008PTC057907, Plot.No.1-12,
Ramaswamy Towers, YSR Inner Ring Road, 0pp. Ajithsingh Nagar
Area, Vijayawada, NTR District, AP - 520015.
2. R.Srinivas Vikram, S/o. Ravikrindi Ramaswamy, Age 45 Years, Occ:
Authorised Representative - Cum - ChiefExecutive officer. M/s. VIKRAM
BOOK LINKS PRIVATE LIMITED, Office at Plot.No.1-12, Ramaswamy
Towers, YSR Inner Ring Road, 0pp. Ajithsingh Nagar Area,
Vijayawada, NTR District, AP - 520015.
...PETITIONERS
AND
1. The State of AP, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of School
Education, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Tullur Mandal-
Guntur Distric Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Commissioner of School Education, Department of School
Education, Andhra Pradesh, D.No.398/3, Vidya bhavan, Venkatadiri
towers, Atmakur(V) Mangalagiri(M), Guntur District -522503.
3. The Director, Andhra Pradesh Government Textbook Press,
Department of School Education, Andhra Pradesh 5th Floor, Vidhya
Bhavan, Atmakuru, Mangalagiri, Guntur Disrict, Andhra Pradesh.
4. E-Procurement Department, IT, E and C, Department, Represented by
its Director, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur
District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of MANDAMUS i. Declaring the impugned Tender
Notification Rc.No.109/T2/2025 dated 18.02.2025 issued by the
Respondent/s herein is illegal, Arbitrary, violative of principles of natural
justice. Contrary to the A.P.Financial Code and General Financial Rules
(GFR), 2017 apart from Article 14,19(1 )(g) and 21 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 and Consequently, to set-aside/quash the Notification
Rc.No.109/T2/2025 dated 18.02.2025. ii. Declaring that the failure to
conduct a pre-bid meeting in the impugned tender notification
Rc.No.109/T2/2025 dated 18.02.2025 is violation of the principles of
natural justice, transparency and fair competition in public procurement
and consequently, direct the respondents to hold a pre-bid meeting and
allow bidders to submit revised bids after addressing their concerns. AND
consequently direct the Respondent Authorities to ensure to have wider
participation at par with the neighbouring states while having sufficient
securities in place in order to achieve affordable education and fair and
transparent policy to keep majority of the series publishers within the zone
of eligibility so as to have timely and effective supply of books to the needy
students. ^
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to grant STAY on the operation of the tender Notification
Rc.No.109/T2/2025 dated 18.02.2025 issued by the Respondent/s herein.
lA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the Respondent/s herein to consider the Petitioner/s
objections raised through representations dated 05.02.2025 & 21.02.2025
and pass speaking order/s forthwith.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010102442025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 5435 OF 2025
Between:
1.VIKRAM BOOK LINKS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP.BY. ITS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, CIN. U22219AP2008PTC057907,
PLOT.NO.1-12, RAMASWAMY TOWERS, YSR INNER RING ROAD,
OPP. AJITHSINGH NAGAR AREA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, AP
-520015.
2..R.SRINIVAS VIKRAM, , S/O. RAVIKRINDI RAMASWAMY, AGE 45
YEARS, OCC AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CUM
CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER. M/S. VIKRAM BOOK LINKS PRIVATE
LIMITED, OFFICE AT PLOT.NO.1-12, RAMASWAMY TOWERS, YSR
INNER RING ROAD, OPP. AJITHSINGH NAGAR AREA,
VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, AP - 520015.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1.THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, TULLUR MANDAL-GUNTUR
DISTRIC ANDHRA PRADESH.
2.THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF
SCHOOL EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH, D.NO.398/3, VIDYA
BHAVAN, VENKATADIRI TOWERS, ATMAKUR(V) MANGALAGIRI(M),
GUNTUR DISTRICT -522503.
2
3.THE DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH GOVERNMENT TEXTBOOK
PRESS, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, ANDHRA
PRADESH 5TH FLOOR, VIDHYA BHAVAN, ATMAKURU,
MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4.EPROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT, IT, E AND C, DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S);
1 .TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1 GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
The Court made the following ORDER;
Heard Sri Y. Tagore Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri
G. Rama Chandra Rao, Ld. Government Pleader for Education for the
Responents.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction
more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus:
/. Declaring the .■ impugned Tender
Notification Rc.No.109/T2/2025 dated
18.02.2025 issued by the
Respondent/s herein is illegal,
Arbitrary, violative of principles of
natural justice. Contrary to the A.P.
Financial Code and General Financial
Rules (GFR), 2017 apart from Article
14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution
of India, 1950 and Consequently, to
3
set-aside/quash the Notification
Rc.No. 109/T2/2025 dated 18.02.2025;
a. Declaring that the failure to conduct
a pre-bid meeting in the impugned
tender notification Rc.No.109/T2/2025
dated 18.02.2025 is violation of the
principles of natural justice,
transparency and fair competition in
public procurement and consequently,
direct the respondents to hold a pre-bid
meeting;
Hi. and allow bidders to submit revised
bids after addressing their concerns.
AND consequently direct the Respondent
Authorities to ensure to have wider participation
at par with the neighbouring states while having
sufficient securities in place in order to achieve
affordable education and fair and transparent
policy to keep majority of the serious publishers
within the zone of eligibility so as to have timely
and effective supply of books to the needy
students AND/OR to pass such other order or
orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice."
The facts as presented by the Writ Petitioner are that:
3. The Writ Petitioners are the Printers and Suppliers of the Textbooks to
various State Governments. The Writ Petitioner No.1, through Writ Petitioner
No.2, had been printing and supplying the Textbooks to the Department of
Education for supply of Textbooks to the schools in the state.
4. The Director, Andhra Pradesh Government Textbooks Press
(Respondent No.3) has issued a Ten^eji^Notification bearing Notification vide
Rc.No.109/T2/2025, dated 18.02.2025 (Ex.P.1) calling for "Expression of
4
Interest (Eol)" for Empanelment of Printers/Publishers/Book Distributors of
Andhra Pradesh for printing and distribution of school textbooks/workbooks
(with paper) for sale component to the students studying in private schools for
the Academic Years 2025-2026 & 2026-2027. The notable tender conditions
would include Clause-5 in Section-1 dealing with the 'Scope of Work'. Clauses
8 and 9 of Section-ll of the Tender Notification dated 18.02.2025 (Ex.P.1)
deals with supply of sample copies at the earliest point of time so that the
textbooks should be made available and also with regard to 'Annual Turnover'.
5. In the original Tender Notification that was issued on 18.02.2025,
Clause 9 of Section-ll read as under:
"9. ANNUAL TURNOVER: The annual turnover
for submission of Expression of Interest (Eol) for
Empanelment of the printers/publishers/Book
distributors is Rs. 10.00 crores for each year for the
last three financial years i.e., 2022-23, 2023-24 and
2024-25. In support of this they have to submit the
necessary documentary evidence (i.e., Xerox copies
of the annual accounts) and audited statements
certified by Charted Accountant with a valid UDIN
Number etc.,"
6. In the original Tender Notification that was issued on 18.02.2025
Clause 14 of Section-ll read as under;
"14. The bidder who wish to participate in
this tender should have an experience of
minimum of two years in last three years i.e.,
2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 in printing and
publicationof school books in Andhra Pradesh."
5
Within three days thereafter, a Corrigendum was issued on 20.02.2025
amending the Clause-9 of Section-ll. The Corrigendum that was issued on
20.02.2025 by amending the clause-9 reads as under:
"9. Annual Turnover: As per Tender Condition
to point No.9. The annual turnover for submission of
expression of Interest-(Eol) for empanelment of the
printers/ publishers/book distributors is Rs.10 crores
for each year for the last 3 financial years i.e. 2021-
22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 for annual turnover and
Income tax returns. "
8. Another Corrigendum was also issued on 21.02.2025 by amending
Clause-14 of Section-!! in the original Tender Notification. Amended Clause-
14 of Section-ll reads as under:
"The bidder who wishes to participate in this
tender should have an experience of minimum of two
years in last five years i.e., 2020-2021, 2021-2022,
2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 in printing,
publication and distribution of school textbooks and
workbooks in Andhra Pradesh"
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONERS:
9. Sri Y. Tagore Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has made the
following submissions:
9.1. That the tender conditions as laid down by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh during the yesteryears had fixed a minimum turnover of five crores
during the last three financial years. Whereas, Clause-9 of the Section-ll
Tender Notification had doubled the minimum turnover and made it as ten
crores for the last three financial years i.e., 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-
2025.
6
9.2.
Prior to the issue of the Tender Notification on 18.02.2025, the Writ
Petitioner No.1 had addressed
a Letter dated 05.02.2025 (Ex.P.2) to the
Director of School Education informing the Government that the price of the
paper has got significantly reduced in the market from Rs.115 per kg to Rs.80
per kg leading to a substantial decrease in the overall production cost. It is
also stated in the said Letter that considering this reduction, the per-page rate
can be adjusted by 15% lower than the previously fixed rate, which would
directly benefit the students by making the subject textbooks more affordable.
It was also requested by the Writ Petitioners that this development of reduced
cost of the paper may be factored-in while issuing the Tender Notification.
9.3.
The Writ Petitioner No.1 has also, addressed another Letter on
24.02.2025 i.e., after the Tender Notification was issued on 18.02.2025 stating
that the Writ Petitioners were not invited for any discussion despite informing
the Government about the reduced cost of the paper.
9.4 .
That up to the previous academic year (2024-2025) the eligibility criteria
for the bidders to participate in the Tender notification for supply of text books
was 'five crores' turnover per annum; whereas, the present Tender Notification
has fixed minimum turnover per annum as 'ten crores' atleast for two financial
years in the three previous financial years. Ld. Counsel would submit that this
condition is not only arbitrary, but has been tailor-made so as to exclude
certain bidders and to reduce the competition with a view to provide benefit to
certain bidders.
7
9.5. That the case of the Writ Petitioners may be considered for
empanelment for the purpose of encouraging micro and small scale industries
which are registered with the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd
(NSIC). Since the Writ Petitioner No.1 is also a small scale industry, which is
registered with the NSIC, the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit
that the modification of the condition that was prevailing during the
yesteryears i.e., the increase of the turnover from five crores to ten crores, is
highly arbitrary. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also taken this Court
through various clauses of the Tender Notification issued by the Government
of Telangana for the academic year 2024-2025. He has also drawn the
attention of this Court to the Tender Notification issued by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh for the academic years 2023-2024, 2024-2025 (Ex.P.4). He
has drawn the attention of this Court to clause 19 of the Tender Condition of
the earlier Tender issued on 09-03-2023 for the academic years (2023-2024 &
2024-2025) to state that the five crores turnover was the minimum threshold
that was fixed.
9.6. He would submit that the thresholds have been raised only with a view
to accommodate M/s. Vyjayanti Printers. However, M/s. Vyjayanti printers
have not been impleaded as a party Respondent in the present Writ Petition.
9.7. The reason for increase of the turnover threshold from five crores to ten
crores was justified by the Official Respondents by stating that the suppliers
have defaulted in payment of Royalty in the earlier Tender Notifications for the
academic years 2023-2024 & 2024-2025. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for
8
the Writ Petitioners that the reason shown by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh for increase of the turnover from five crores to ten crores due to the
defaults by the suppliers in payment of the Royalty to the Government is
factually incorrect. He would submit that several publishers were empanelled
during the academic years 2023-2024, 2024-2025, but not a single supplier
has defaulted the payment of Royalty to the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENTS:
10. The Official Respondents have filed Counter-Affidavit. They have
contended in the Counter-Affidavit that fixation of the threshold of turnover by
increasing from five crores to ten crores is not arbitrary and inasmuch as the
Government has the right to fix the thresholds depending on the previous
experiences as well as to ensure seamless supply of Textbooks. The
Government has also contended that no favoritism is shown to any one nor
are the Tender conditions tailor-made to favour some firms and to discriminate
certain other firms. It was also stated in the Counter-Affidavit that the
threshold was raised for avoiding default in payment of royalty in the future.
SUBMISSIONS OF LD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR EDUCATION:
11. Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, Ld. Government Pleader for Education
would submit that the total number of bidders who had bidded in the present
Tender Notification are '13' in number. He would submit that out of the '13'
bidders, '8' bidders were qualified in the technical bid. Amongst the five
bidders who were not qualified in the technical bid, two bidders were not
9
qualified on account of lack of turnover of ten crores and the other three
bidders were disqualified for other reasons.
11.1. He would also submit that not only the Writ Petitioners but also all the
other bidders were registered with NSIC and they all possess NSIC
Certificates, either under Micro Industries or Small Industries. He would also
submit that the Corrigendum dated 21.02.2025 is not arbitrary. He would
submit that out of the 13 bidders, 12 bidders are qualified even without
applying the Corrigendum dated 21.02.2025.
11.2. Ld. Government Pleader for Education would also submit that while the
bidders are expected to have a minimum turnover of ten crores for 2 years out
of the last five years (as per the Corrigendum dated 21.02.2025), the Writ
Petitioners herein has a turnover of ten crores for the academic year 2023-
2024, but the Writ Petitioners does not have the ten crores turnover for the
financial years 2020-2021,2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2024-2025.
12. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed on record the following
judgments:
(1) Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India; (1994) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 651. (Para Nos. 77, 79 and 80).
(2) Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association
(Registered) Vs. Union of India and Others; (2021) 8
see 511. (Para Nos. 73, 75, 81, 103).
10
(3) Reliance Energy Ltd. and another Vs. Maharashtra
State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. And others;
(2007) 8 see 1. (Para No.36)
(4) Meerut Development Authority Vs. Association of
Management Studies and Another; (2009) 6 see 171.
(Para No.36).
(5) New Horizons Limited and another Vs. Union of
India and others; (1995) 1 SCC 478. (Para No. 17)
(6) Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. eonstruction
Ltd. and others;(1999) 1 see 492. (Para Nos.19 & 22)
13. Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, Ld. Government Pleader has relied on
certain decisions and would contend that the aspects relating to the technical
bid cannot be judicially reviewed inasmuch as the Government has the
absolute right to fix its' own criteria. He has also cited certain judgments
relating to the turnover to say that the employer has the right to fix the
turnover basing on its' past experiences and the smooth supply of the
goods/products in the future.
14. Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, Ld. Government Pleader for Education
has referred to the following Judgments:
(1) Banshidhar eonstruction Private Limited Vs.
Bharat eoking eoal Limited and Others; (2024) 10 SCC
273.
(2) Tata Motors Limited Vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric
Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and Others;
2023 see Online SC 671.
pr 11
(3) Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders,
Transports and Suppliers Vs. New J.K. Roadways,
Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors and Others;
(2021) 16 see 808.
(4) Central Coalfields Limited and another Vs. SII-SML
(Joint Venture Consortium) and others; (2016) 8 SCC
622.
(5) Director of Education and Ors., Vs. Educomp
Datamatics Ltd., and Ors.,;(2004) 4 SCC 19.
(6) Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka
and Ors.,; (2012) 8 SCC 216.
15. Insofar as the issue of technical bid is concerned, this Court is of the
opinion that issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports
and Suppliers Vs. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport
Contractors and Others, (2021) 16 SCC 808. In Para Nos. 14 to 19 the
Hon'ble Apex court had analysed the nature of tender document and the
dominant position of the Authority in prescribing the 'conditions' in the tender
document. Para Nos. 14 to 19 are usefully extracted hereunder;
14. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that
the authority that authors the tender document is
the best person to understand and appreciate its
requirements, and thus, its interpretation should
not be second-guessed by a court in judicial
review proceedings. In Afeons Infrastructure
Ltd. V. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. [Afeons
Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.,
(2016) 16 SCC 818] , this Court held : (SCC p. 825,
para 15)
12
"15. IVe may add that the owner or the
employer of a project, having authored the
tender documents, is the best person to
understand and appreciate its
requirements and interpret its documents.
The constitutional courts must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of the
tender documents, unless there is mala
fide or perversity in the understanding or
appreciation or in the application of the
terms of the tender conditions. It is
possible that the owner or employer of a
project may give an interpretation to the
tender documents that is not acceptable to
the constitutional courts but that by itself IS
not a reason for interfering with the
interpretation given."
(emphasis supplied)
15. In
the judgment in Bharat Coking Coal
Ltd. u. AMR Dev Prabha [Bharat Coking Coal
Ltd. V. AMR Dev Prabha, (2020) 16 SCC 759], under
the heading 'Deference to authority's interpretation"
this Court stated: (SCC p. 776, paras 50-52)
"50. Lastly, we deem It necessary to deal
with another fundamental problem. It is
obvious that Respondent 1 seeks to only
enforce terms of the NIT. Inherent in such
exercise is interpretation of contractual
terms. However, it must be noted that
judicial interpretation of contracts in
the sphere of commerce stands on a
distinct footing than while interpretina
statutes.
51. In the present facts, it is clear that
BCCL and Cl-India have laid recourse to
clauses of the NIT, whether It be to justify
condonation of delay of Respondent 6 in
submitting performance bank guarantees
or their decision to resume auction on
grounds of technical failure. BCCL having
authored these documents, is better
placed to appreciate their requirements
and interpret them. (Afcons Infrastructure
Ltd. V. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn.
Ltd. [Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. i/. Nagpur
Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC
818], SCC para 15)
13
52. The High Court [Amr-Dev
Prabha u. Union of India, 2018 SCC
OnLine Jhar 2708] ought to have deferred
to this understanding, unless it was
patently perverse or mala fide. Given how
BCCL's interpretation of these clauses
was plausible and not absurd, solely
differences in opinion of contractual
interpretation ought not to have been
grounds for the High Court to come to
a finding that the appellant committed
illegality."
(emphasis supplied)
16. Further, in the recent judgment in Silppi
Constructions Contractors v. Union of India [Silppi
Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020)
16 SCC 489] , this Court held as follows : (SCC pp.
502-503, para 20)
"20. The essence of the law laid down
in the judgments referred to above is
the exercise of restraint and caution;
the need for overwhelming public
interest to Justify Judicial intervention
in matters of contract involving the
State instrumentalities; the courts
should give way to the opinion of the
experts unless the decision is totally
arbitrary or unreasonable; the court
does not sit like a court of appeal over
the appropriate authority; the court
must realise that the authority floating
the tender is the best Judge of its
requirements and, therefore, the
court's interference should be
minimal. The authority which floats the
contract or tender, and has authored
the tender documents is the best Judge
as to how the documents have to be
interpreted. If two interpretations are
possible then the interpretation of the
author must be accepted. The courts
will only interfere to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala
fides or perversity. With this approach
in mind we shall deal with the present
case. "
(emphasis supplied)
14
17. In accordance with these judgments and noting
that the interpretation of the tendering authority in
this case cannot be said to be a perverse one, the
Division Bench ought not to have interfered with it by
giving its own interpretation and not giving proper
credence to the word "both" appearing in Condition
31 of the NIT. For this reason, the Division Bench's
[New J.K. Roadways v. State (UTofJ&K), 2020 SCC
OnLine J&K 733] conclusion that J.K. Roadways i^'as
wrongly declared to be ineligible. Is set aside.
18. Insofar as Condition 27 of the NIT prescribing
work experience of at least 5 years of not less than
the value of Rs 2 crores Is concerned, suffice it to
say that the expert body, being the Tender Opening
Committee, consisting of four members, clearly found
that this eligibility condition had been satisfied by the
appellant before us. Without therefore going into the
assessment of the documents that have been
supplied to this Court, It is well settled that unless
arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the tendering
authority is alleged, the expert evaluation of a
particular tender, particularly when it comes to
technical evaluation. Is not to be second-guessed by
a writ court. Thus, in Jagdish Mandal v. State of
Orissa [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14
SCC 517], this Court noted : (SCC pp. 531-32, para
22)
"22. Judicial review of administrative
action is intended to prevent arbitrariness.
Irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and
mala fides. Its purpose Is to check whether
choice or decision is made "lawfully" and
not to check whether choice or decision is
"sound". When the power of]udicial review
is invoked in matters relating to tenders or
award of contracts, certain special
features should be borne in mind. A
contract IS a commercial
transaction. Evaluating tenders and
awarding contracts are essentially
commercial functions. Principles of equity
and natural ]ustice stay at a distance. If
the decision relating to award of contract
Is bona fide and is in public interest, courts
will not, in exercise of power of judicial
review, interfere even if a procedural
aberration or error in assessment or
prejudice to a tenderer. Is made out. The
power of judicials jsview will not be
15
permitted to be invoked to protect private
interest at the cost of public interest, or to
decide contractual disputes. The tenderer
or contractor with a grievance can always
seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by
unsuccessful tenderers with Imaginary
grievances, wounded pride and business
rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills
of some technical/proceduralviolation or
some prejudice to self, and persuade
courts to interfere by exercising power of
judicial review, should be resisted. Such
interferences, either interim or final, may
hold up public works for years, or delay
relief and succour to thousands and
millions and may increase the project cost
manifold. Therefore, a court before
interfering in tender or contractual matters
in exercise of power of judicial review,
should pose to itself the following
questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or
decision made by the authority is mala fide
or intended to favour someone;
OR
Whether the process adopted or decision
made Is so arbitrary and irrational that the
court can say.'the decision is such that no
responsible authority acting reasonably
and in accordance with relevant law could
have reached';
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there
should be no interference under Article
226. Cases involving blacklisting or
imposition of penal consequences on a
tenderer/contractor or distribution of State
largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of
licences, dealerships and franchises)
stand on a different footing as they may
require a higher degree of fairness in
action. "
(emphasis supplied)
19. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC [Montecarlo
Ltd. V. NTPC, (2016) 15 SCC 272], this Court stated
as follows : (SCC p. 288, para 26)
"26. We respectfully concur with the
aforesaid statement of law. We have
16
reasons to do so. In the present scenario,
tenders are floated and offers are invited
for highly complex technical subjects. It
requires understanding and appreciation
of the nature of work and the purpose it is
going to serve. It is common knowledge in
the competitive commercial field that
technical bids pursuant to the notice
inviting tenders are scrutinised by the
technical experts and sometimes third-
party assistance from those unconnected
with the owner's organisation is taken.
This ensures objectivity. Bidder's expertise
and technical capability and capacity must
be assessed by the experts. In the matters
of financial assessment, consultants are
appointed. It is because to check and
ascertain that technical ability and the
financial feasibility have sanguinity and
are workable and realistic. There is a
multi-prong complex approach; highly
technical in nature. The tenders where
public largesse is put to auction stand on
a different compartment. Tender with
which we are concerned, is not
comparable to any scheme for allotment.
This arena which we have referred
requires technical expertise. Parameters
applied are different. Its aim is to achieve
high degree of perfection in execution and
adherence to the time schedule. But, that
does not mean, these tenders will escape
scrutiny of judicial reyipw. Exercise of
power of judicial review would be called
for if the approach is arbitrary or mala fide
or procedure adopted is meant to favour
one. The decision-making process should
clearly show that the said maladies are
kept at bay. But where a decision is taken
that is manifestly in consonance with the
language of the tender document or
subserves the purpose for which the
tender is floated, the court should follow
the principle of restraint Technical
evaluation or comparison by the court
would be impermissible. The principle that
is applied to scan and understand an
ordinary instrument relatable to contract in
other spheres has to beJreated differently
than interpreting and appreciating tender
17
documents relating to technical works and
projects requiring special skills. The owner
should be allowed to carry out the purpose
and there has to be allowance of free play
in the joints. "
16. In Director of Education and Ors., Vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd.,
and Ors.,;(2004) 4 SCO 19, the Hon'ble Apex Court had with the fixation of
thresholds with regard to the turnover in public contracts. Para Nos. 9 to 13 of
the judgment is usefully extracted hereunder:
"9. It is well settled now that the courts can
scrutinise the award of the contracts by the
Government or its agencies in exercise of their
powers of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or
favouritism. However, there are inherent limitations in
the exercise of the power of judicial review in such
matters. The point as to the extent of judicial review
permissible In contractual matters while Inviting bids
by issuing tenders has been examined in depth by
this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6
see 651] .After examining the entire case-law the
following principles have been deduced: (SCC pp.
687-88, para 94)
"94. The principles deducible from the
above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial
restraint in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of
appeal but merely reviews the manner in
which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise
to correct the administrative decision. If a
review of the administrative decision is
permitted it will be substituting its own
decision, without the necessary expertise
which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender
cannot be open to judicial scrutiny
because the invitation to tender is in the
realm of contract. Normally speaking, the
decision to accept the tender or award the
contract is reached by process of
negotiations through several tiers. More
18
often than not, such decisions are made
qualitatively by experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom
of contract. In other words, a fair play in
the joints is a necessary concomitant for
an administrative body functioning in an
administrative sphere or quasi-
administrative sphere. However, the
decision must not only be tested by the
application of Wednesbury principle of
reasonableness (including its other facts
pointed out above) but must be free from
arbitrariness not affected by bias or
actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy
administrative burden on the
administration and lead to increased and
unbudgeted expenditure.
■ }}■
(emphasis supplied)
10. In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport
Ltd. [(2000) 2 see 617] this Court observed: (SCC p.
623, para 7)
"The award of a contract, whether it is by a
private party or by a public body or the
State, is essentially fa commercial
transaction. In arriving at a commercial
decision considerations which are
paramount are commercial
considerations. The State can choose Its
own method to arrive at a decision. It can
fix its own terms of invitation to tender and
that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can
enter into negotiations before finally
deciding to accept one of the offers made
to it. Price need not always be the sole
criterion for awarding a contract. It is free
to grant any relaxation, for bona fide
reasons, if the tender conditions permit
such a relaxation. It may not accept the
offer even though it happens to be the
highest or the lowest. But the State, its
corporations, instrumentalities and
agencies are bound to adhere to the
norms, standards and procedure laid
down by them and cannot depart from
them arbitrarily. Though that decision is
not amenable to judicial review, the court
can examine the decision-making process
19
and interfere if if is found vitiated by mala
fides, unreasonableness and
arbitrariness.
(emphasis supplied)
11. This principle was again restated by this Court
in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commr,
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corpn. [(2000) 5 SCC 287] It
was held that the terms and conditions in the tender
are prescribed by the Government bearing in mind
the nature of contract and in such matters the
authority calling for the tender is the best judge to
prescribe the terms and conditions of the tender. It Is
not for the courts to say whether the conditions
prescribed in the tender under consideration were
better than the ones prescribed in the earlier tender
invitations.
12. It has clearly been held in these decisions that
the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to
judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of
contract. That the Government must have a free
hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have
reasonable play in its joints as a necessary
concomitant for an administrative body in an
administrative sphere: The courts would interfere
with the administrative policy decision only if it is
arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by
bias. It Is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which
may be called for by the particular circumstances.
The courts cannot strike down the terms of the
tender prescribed by' the Government because it
feels that some other terms in the tender would have
been fair, wiser or logical. The courts can interfere
only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory
or mala fide.
13. Directorate of Education, Government of NOT
of Delhi had invited open tender with prescribed
eligibility criteria in general terms and conditions
under tender document for leasing of supply,
installation and commissioning of computer systems,
peripherals and provision of computer education
services in various government/government-aided
senior secondary, secondary and middle schools
under the Directorate of Education, Delhi. In the year
2002-03, 748 schools were to be covered. Since the
expenditure Involved per annum was to the tune of
Rs. 100 crores, the competent authority took a
decision after consulting the Technical Advisory
20
Committee for finalisation of the terms and conditions
of the tender documents providing therein that
tenders be invited from firms having a turnover of
more than Rs. 20 crores over the last three years.
The hardware cost itself was to be Rs. 40-45 crores.
The Government introduced the criterion of turnover
of Rs. 20 crores to enable the companies with real
competence having financial stability and capacity to
participate in the tender, particularly in view of the
past experience. We do not agree with the view
taken by the High Court that the term providing a
turnover of at least Rs. 20 crores did not have a
nexus with either the increase in the number of
schools or the quality of education to be provided.
Because of the increase in the number of schools the
hardware cost Itself went up to Rs. 40-50 crores. The
total cost of the project was more than Rs. 100
crores. A company having a tuipover of Rs. 2 crores
may not have the financial viability to implement such
a project. -As a matter of policy the Government took
a conscious decision to deaf with one firm having
financial capacity to take up such a big project
instead of dealing with multiple small companies
which is a relevant consideration while awarding
such a big project. Moreover, it was for the authority
to set the terms of the tender. The courts would not
interfere with the terms of the tender notice unless it
was shown to be either arbitrary or discriminatory or
actuated by malice. While exercising the power of
judicial review of the terms of the tender notice the
court cannot say that the terms of the earlier tender
notice would serve the purpose sought to be
achieved better than the terms of tender notice under
consideration and order change in them, unless it is
of the opinion that the terms were either arbitrary or
discriminatory or actuated by malice. The provision of
the terms inviting tenders from firms having a
turnover of more than Rs. 20 crores has not been
shown to be either arbitrary or discriminatory or
actuated by malice. "
ANALYSIS:
17. Although, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed heavy reliance
on the Tender conditions in various Tender Notifications of the State of
Telangana as well as the State of Andhra Pfadesh, particularly with regard to
21
the academic years 2023-2024, 2024-2025, this Court is of the view that
reference to such Tender conditions has no relevance inasmuch as every
individual Authority has always right to either prescribe or to modify the
Tender conditions 'at will'.
One idiomatic expression states that 'Monkeys
cannot decide the affairs of the forest' likewise, a bidder can never dictate the
employer or the Government Authority with regard to the fixation of tender
conditions or the parameters. Even with regard to the offer made by the Writ
Petitioners through their Letter dated 05.02.2025 (Ex.P.2), by which the Writ
Petitioners had acted like a whistle-blower to the Government informing the
Government that the price of the paper has significantly reduced from
Rs.150/- per Kg to Rs.80/- per Kg with a request to the Government to factor-
in this reduction in price in the Tender document which is likely to be issued in
the near future, the said intimation may not enure to the benefit of the Writ
Petitioners. It can always be reasonably assumed that the Government and
}
its Authorities are also keeping themselves abreast of the changes in the
I
market price with regard to the cost of paper from time to time. Therefore no
benefit can be attached to the Writ Petitioners in informing the Government
with regard to the reduction of price of paper.
18.
In the ultimate analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the increase of
the threshold with regard to the turnover from five crores per annum to ten
crores per annum is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. This Court is also of
the opinion that giving latitude to the bidders to show the minimum turnover of
ten crores for two years period during the last five financial years is also not
22
arbitrary. The facts in the present case would also indicate that out of the 13
bidders, 8 bidders have reached the threshold of turnover of ten crores.
Therefore, it cannot be said that fixation of the 10 crores threshold is arbitrary
in nature nor is it discriminative in any manner because out of the 13 bidders
8 bidders were qualified in the technical bid.
19. At this stage, the Court is also reminded of the fact that about 12
bidders got qualified even without the Corrigendum dated 21.02.2025 and
therefore, it cannot be said that the Corrigendum that was issued within three
days of the earlier Tender Notification is bad in law.
20. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition is
devoid of any merit. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
21. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
//TRUE COPY// Sd/- K J RAJA BABU
ASSISTAN^EGISTRAR
Section officer
To,
1. One CC to Sri Tagore Yadav Yaragorla Advocate [OPUC]
2. Two CCs to GP for School Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
[OUT]
3. 9 L.R. Copies.
4. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice &
Company Affiars, New Delhi.
5. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates Association, High Court of
A.P. at Amaravati, Guntur District.
6. Three CD Copies
TF
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/05/2025
ORDER
WP.No.5435 of 2025
X 1 MAY 2n?5 ^ Curreni beciion * DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS