Himavanth Reddy V. The Union of India Rep.by its Secretary,

WP/10540/2014

AI Insights

The case involves a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the tender process for shops and canteens at the University of Hyderabad, specifically alleging that the tender process was not conducted transparently. The petitioner, who had taken over a bakery business previously run by his deceased brother on the university campus, contested the tender process after participating and quoting a lower bid than the highest bidder. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had not substantiated his claims against the tender process and had participated in it without objection at the time.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724245 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: General Terms and Conditions for Allotment of Shops/Restaurants/Canteens at University of Hyderabad
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Illegal and arbitrary; License fee; Mandamus; Renewal; Technical bid; Tender Notice; Prize bid
• Section: 42

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.10540 OF 2014 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in calling for the tender notice for shops and canteens at University of Hyderabad and not opening the prize bid in the presence of the quoted bidders and opening the technical bid in the presence of quoted bidders, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to set aside the process of tender notice. It is alleged that the brother of the petitioner, by name Narasimha Reddy, was running bakery in the name and style ‘Bangalore Bakery’ since 25 years in the campus of the second respondent and the petitioner’s brother died in the year 2010 and after demise of his brother, the petitioner continued the business in the said campus and that the petitioner’s family is fully experienced in running bakery shop and providing bakery items and snacks to the students, faculty and staff of the University from time to time and that the respondents have issued a tender notice dated 22.01.2014 calling tenders for shops and canteens in the University campus. The tenders were opened after three days i.e., on 23.01.2014 and allotted the tenders after one week to the public and even after a gap of two months, the respondents have not released the EMD amount and it is stated that the bidders have to submit the audited balance sheets, particulars of the income tax returns, bank statements and particulars of business turnovers for two years. It is further alleged that the respondents have taken signatures from the petitioner and others for using their choice and they have opened the prize bid first and later opened the technical bid. As per Clause No.42 of the General Terms and Conditions for Allotment of Shops/Restaurants/Canteens at University of Hyderabad, under Annexure-3, in case the shop/canteen is renewed, the License Fee will be increased as per Campus Amenities Committee (CAC) recommendations and on further approval of the Vice-Chancellor and a minimum of 10% increase in License Fee shall be effected if license is renewed. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents calling for the tenders for shops and canteens and opening the prize bid, this Writ Petition is filed, apart from seeking to set aside the tender notice dated 22.01.2014. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has reiterated the contentions in the writ affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the license is granted in favour of one Narasimha Reddy, who is no more and thereafter, the petitioner continued the business in the said shop and that the petitioner was issued vacation notices on 26.07.2013 and 01.01.2014. The respondents issued tenders for granting license for running bakery and that the interested persons participated and the highest bidder offered was Rs.15,050/- for running bakery and that the petitioner has also participated in the tender process and quoted Rs.7,500/- and having participated in the tender process, the petitioner is questioning the same having realized that he will not be allotted the shop for running bakery. The process of allotment is still in progress. The petitioner states that his brother was running bakery for the last 25 years and he also admitted that he has participated in the tender process. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the petitioner quoted Rs.7,500/- and the highest bidder quoted Rs.15,050/-. The affidavit is also vague as to whether the petitioner is continuing or his brother has been continuing for the last 25 years and the ground of challenge of tender process is not mentioned except saying that the tenders are not opened in the public. Once the petitioner is not the licensee, he cannot invoke Clause No.42 for renewal of the shop and it is his further case that 10% increase of licensee fee shall be effected if license is renewed. In view of the above, I do not see any valid ground for interdicting the tender process, as the petitioner has not made out any case. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed. _____________________ (A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J) 7th April 2014 RRB "