The Andhra Pradesh High Court has rejected a writ petition that challenged a lottery-based tie-breaker clause in a government tender, ruling that the clause was introduced to maintain fairness and did not violate any legal principles.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti, delivering the judgment, stated:
“The said clause, impugned in the writ petition, by no stretch of imagination can be termed as arbitrary. In fact, the said clause was incorporated as part of fairness in the selection process.”
The petitioner, G. Venkata Ramana, who held an A-grade license for electrical installations, approached the Court seeking to declare Clause 5(iii) of the bid document as illegal and arbitrary. This clause specified that if more than one bidder is eligible for the same contract with equal bid percentages, the final selection would be decided through a lottery system.
The tenders, floated by the Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Limited (APTRANSCO), covered contracts for operations and maintenance of substations and other related services. The clause under challenge aimed to resolve ties when multiple bidders quoted the same commission percentage.
Read Also:- Rape Is Not Mere Physical Assault, Granting Bail Must Consider Societal Interests: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The petitioner argued that this method overlooked essential criteria such as financial viability and the contractor’s turnover. He contended that the clause lacked fairness and transparency, thus breaching principles of equality under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
However, the respondents, including APTRANSCO, defended the clause, stating:
“The condition of lottery was added to prevent any allegations of favoritism and to ensure a transparent selection process in the event of a tie.”
Read Also:- Court's Delay in Urgent Notice Defeats Purpose of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Court emphasized the importance of proper pleadings in legal challenges. Justice Satti noted that the petitioner failed to provide specific grounds explaining why the clause was arbitrary or unjust. Moreover, the petitioner had not even participated in the bidding process.
“Except for stating that the said clause is arbitrary, nothing was pleaded as to how it violates the principles of natural justice,” the Court observed.
Referencing Supreme Court judgments, the Court reiterated that a challenge to a legal clause must be supported by detailed pleadings and evidence. In this case, the petitioner’s arguments extended beyond the claims made in the original affidavit, which is not legally acceptable.
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court: Witness Deposing for Himself and Others with Common Defence Cannot Be Rejected
In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, stating that the clause was part of a fair and objective selection method and that the petitioner’s challenge amounted to “chance litigation.”
“The petitioner, even without participating in the tender process, approached this Court. This, in the opinion of the Court, is a misuse of its extraordinary jurisdiction,” the judge remarked.
The writ petition was thus dismissed without any costs.
