B.C.Rajesh v. Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd

of the Constitution of India praying that in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be any other appropriate writ or direction respondents in issuing tender notifications in 1) f- % .§£/G/TPT/APSPDCL Tech 2) SE/O/CTR/APSPDCL TS-26/2025-26, iiS-28i/2025-26, and 4) SE/OPN/APSPDCL/ANM/3) TS.No.36/2025-26 ^ SE/OPN/APSPDCL/KDP/TS.No.30/2025-26 for awarding the work of carrying / out operation and maintenance of 33/11 KV Sub-Stations without there being clarity about the selection of successful bidders is principles of the natural justice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of tender notifications issued by the India and consequently set-aside the illegal, arbitrary, violation of respondent authorities. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated further proceedings pursuant to tender in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 1) SE/O/TPT/APSPDCL 2)SE/0/CTR/APSPDCL, Tech/TS-28/2025-26, 3) SE/OPN/APSPDCL/ANM/TS.No.36/2025-26 and 4) respondent SE/OPN/APSPDCL/KDP/TS.No.30/2025-26 TS-26/2025-26, notifications in issued Tech / authorities, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S OMR LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL The Court made the following order: .w APHC010501982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3328] (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 25708 OF 2025 Between:

1.B.C.RAJESH,, S/0. LATE B. CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, balaji nagar, ctm road, MADANAPALLE, R/0. D.N0.6-33-C, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND

#1. ANDHRA PRADESH REP. CORPORATION LTD, CORPORATE OFFICE, KESAVAYANAGUTTA, TIRUPATI. DISTRIBUTION ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN POWER BY

2.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATIONS, APSPDCL, KESAVAYANAGUTTA, TIRUPATI.

3.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATIONS, APSPDCL GREENSPET, CHITTOOR.

4.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATIONS, APSPDCL, RAYACHOTI, ANNAMAYYA NEAR Y JUNCTION, PILERU ROAD, DISTRICT.

5.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATIONS, APSPDCL, KADAPA. 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 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Tech / TS-26/2025-26, pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction respondents in issuing tender notifications in 1) declaring the action of the SE/O/TPT/APSPDCL 2) SE/O/CTR/APSPDCL, Tech/TS-28/2025-26, and 4) SE/OPN/APSPDCL/ANM/3) TS.No.36/2025-2 6 SE/OPN/APSPDCL/KDP/TS.No.30/2025-26 for awarding the work of carrying out operation and maintenance of 33/11 KV Sub-Stations without there being clarity about the selection of successful bidders is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of the natural justice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the tender notifications issued by the respondent authorities and pass 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to tender notifications in 1) SE/O/TPT/APSPDCL 2)SE/0/CTR/APSPDCL, Tech/TS-28/2025-26, 3) SE/OPN/APSPDCL/ANM/TS.No.36/2025-26 and 4) respondent SE/OPN/APSPDCL/KDP/TS.No.30/2025-26 authorities, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass TS-26/2025-26, issued Tech / Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.0 MR LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1 .VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

#2. *1^ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 25708 of 2025 ORDER: - Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, briefed by M/s O.M.R. Law Firm, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner.

#2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition as under: 2) SE/O/CTR/APSPDCL, “For the aforementioned reasons, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction of the respondents in issuing declaring the action 1) SE/O/TPT/APSPDCL Tech / tender notifications in TS-26/2025-26, Tech/TS- 28/2025-26, 3) /OPN/APSPDCUANM/TS.No.36/2025- 26 and 4) SE/OPN/APSPDCUKDP/TS.No.30/2025-26 for awarding the work of carrying out operation and maintenance of 33/11 KV Sub-Stations without there being clarity about the selection of successful bidders is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of the natural justice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India tender notifications issued by the respondent authorities and pass such order or orders as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper In the facts and circumstances of the case. ” consequently set-aside

#3. The facts in this case as projected by Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, are that the Writ Petitioner has a valid A-Grade Electrical Licence issued by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Andhra Pradesh, for carrying out Operation and Maintenance of 33 kv and above including Watch and Ward, Housekeeping, Gardening, etc.; that the Writ Petitioner is the existing Contractor for maintaining sub-stations in Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Andhra Pradesh Limited (AP TRANSCO); and that he belongs to the QBC community, for which reservation is provided. 2

#4. Engineer, the Superintending He further submits that Operation, APSPDCL, issued a Tender Notification dated 04.09.2025 for carrying out Operation and Maintenance of 5 Nos. 33/11 KV Sub stations at 5 places round the clock on works-contract basis as per the scope of work in Rural Chandragiri Section, in the Rural Division, Tirupati (O) Circle, Tirupati, for a estimated period Contract Value years; 2 Rs. 1,66,95,889/-; that various Tender conditions are set out in the Tender document; and that Clauses 22.6 and 22.7 (Page No. 14 of the Bid document), reads as follows;

22.6 The bidder has to quote +3% to +4% of administration charges, the bid quoted less that +3% and more than +4% will not be accepted and it will be liable to be rejected

22.7 Incase more than one bidder is quoted the same price i.e., L1, the undersigned resen/es the right to decide the successful Bidder.

#5. It is contended by the Writ Petitioner that Clauses 22.6 and 22.7 are unclear, inasmuch as there is no indication of the procedure that the Respondents would adopt if two or more bidders quote the same price. It is contended that the tenderers are required to quote their administrative charges only between +3% and +4%, which means that the bidders are given a narrow range of 1%, inasmuch as the leverage to quote only within difference between +3% and +4% is only 1%.

#6. It is contended by Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel that while the variations among the bids can only be in the range of 1%, a situation can arise where two or more bidders quote the same price and the decision is left to the discretion of the Authorities; and that such discretion without prescribing parameters, is arbitrary and bad in law. 3 Analysis:

#7. Admittedly, the bidder is an existing Contractor. The bid was issued on 04.09.2025 and the last date for receipt of bids is up to 16:00 hours on

20.09.2025. The date and time for opening the Tender is from 17:00 hours on

20.09.2025 itself.

#8. While the Tender was issued way back on 04.09.2025 and the last date for submission of bids is 20.09.2025, the present Writ Petition was filed only

18.09.2025, challenging the Tender conditions in Clauses 22.6 and 22.7, which is just two days before the closure of bids.

#9. In the present Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner is also seeking an Order of Stay of the Tender process as an interim relief.

#10. While the approach of the Writ Petitioner in approaching the Court only

18.09.2025, whereas the Tender document was issued way back on

04.09.2025, is one aspect of the issue involved in seeking interim relief to stay the Tender process. This conduct of the Writ Petitioner must also be taken into account by the Writ Court to determine whether the Writ Petitioner was diligent in approaching the Court or whether it had approached this Court with intent to delay the tender process with any oblique motive to continue as existing contractor?

#11. The contention of the Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel is that the variation provided between +3% and +4% is a difference of 1%, which is very narrow. In the event that the Respondents have reserved their right to select one among the equally placed bidders at their discretion without laying down any criteria or parameters, the decision ‘may be’ arbitrary and therefore would be bad in law. Taking the contention of Writ Petitioner into account, this Court is of the 12. considered opinion that the criteria or conditions laid down in Clauses 22.6 and 22.7 are neither arbitrary nor vague in nature. This raises the question -•> 4 whether the Respondent Authorities are expected to lay down the conditions in such a precise manner with absolute exactitude that there cannot be any leverage or discretion in selecting one among several equal bidders at their own discretion. The other issue that arises is whether a party can approach the Court with a presumption that the Respondents are going to be arbitrary and whether such imagination presumption can be preempted by approaching the Court of law.

#13. The above discussion would raise the following issues for consideration before this Court. Issues: -

#1. Whether the Respondent Authorities legally obligated to lay down the Eligibility conditions/ Criteria with absolute exactitude in such precise manner that such Eligibility Conditions/ Criteria would cover each and every issue that may arise in the course of evaluation of Bids?

#2. Whether there is any Cause of Action in the present Writ Petition?

#3. Whether the present Writ Petition is an Abuse of Process?

#14. Issue No.1: - Whether Respondent Authorities legally obligated to lay down the Eligibility conditions/ Criteria with absolute exactitude in such precise manner that such Eligibility Conditions/ Criteria would cover each and every issue that may arise in the course of evaluation of Bids? 5 The facts in this case would indicate in no uncertain terms that the Writ Petitioner has not been aggrieved of any action or inaction or any arbitrariness in the decision making process. The facts in this case would also indicate that the Writ Petitioner has imagined without any foundation that there is a likelihood of having a ‘tie’ between the writ petitioner and any other bidder or bidders and in such an event, the ‘discretion’ which is reserved by the Authorities in Clause No.22.7 in choosing one among such bidders without laying down any further criteria would be in violation of the principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

#15. It is settled law that the employer is endowed with expansive flexibility and discretion in as much as ‘play in the joints’ is very much available to an employer (Sterling Computers Limited Vs. M/s M & N Publications ORDER WP NO. 25708 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS g( 2 3 OCT 2025 ^ nrentSectioaX*^ «o