Jasti Venkatapathi Rao vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court considered a Memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, along with a letter from the client/Writ Petitioner, seeking to withdraw the present Writ Petitions. The Court took the Memo and the letter on record and granted the request. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition Nos. 15909, 15910, and 15912 of 2025 as withdrawn. No order was passed as to costs. The interlocutory applications filed in these petitions were also closed in terms of this order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the illegality of the bid rejection or the entitlement to consideration of bids or refund of processing fees.

Facts

The petitioner, Jasti Venkatapathi Rao, a Special Class Civil Contractor, filed three writ petitions challenging the rejection of his bids and disqualification as a bidder for tenders invited by the Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (APEWIDC). The tenders were for NIT No. 02/MD/APEWIDCA/JA/2025-26, NIT No. 01/MD/APEWIDCA/JA/2025-26, and NIT No. 03/MD/APEWIDCA/JA/2025-26, all dated May 2, 2025. The petitioner alleged that his bids were rejected and he was disqualified without any reasons being furnished, despite being eligible. He sought a direction to consider his bids or, alternatively, to refund the processing fees paid, which included GST. Interlocutory applications were also filed seeking to restrain the respondents from finalizing the tenders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's bids and disqualifying him as a bidder for the tenders, without furnishing any reasons, is illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the respondents to consider his bids for the tenders or, in the alternative, to refund the processing fees paid, including GST. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection of his bids and disqualification were done without providing any reasons, which is arbitrary and violates his fundamental rights. He contended that he was duly eligible for the tenders. He sought either the consideration of his bids or the refund of the processing fee, which included GST. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's order indicates that the petitioner sought to withdraw the petitions.