Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Vikranth Publishers vs The State Of Ap on 12 March, 2025
APHC010121952025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 6129/2025
Between:
1. VIKRANTH PUBLISHERS, REP.BY. ITS PROPRIETOR GORTHI
SRINIVASA CHAKRAVARTHI, S/O. GORTHI NARAYANA,
REGISTRATION.NO.37ACOPG1874G1ZE, D.NO.33-3-33,
GNR.MANSION, RANNANAIDU STREET, SEETHARAMPURAM,
VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, AP - 52002.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, AP SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF
SCHOOL EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH, D.NO.398/3, VIDYA
BHAVAN, VENKATADIRI TOWERS, ATMAKLIR(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. THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, 8TH FLOOR, APIIC TOWERS, IT
PARK, AUTONAGAR, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2
5. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE, 8TH FLOOR, APIIC TOWERS, IT PARK,
AUTONAGAR, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. DHEERA KANISHKA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE
The Court made the following ORDER:
Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Dheera Kanishka, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Gurram
Ramachandra Rao, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education.
2. It is submitted that the Writ Petitioner Firm is registered as „Small
Type Enterprise‟, and therefore, the Petitioner‟s Firm falls under MSME
category of industries. It is submitted by Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel that the Official Respondent No.1 has issued Notification bearing
Rc.No.109/T2/2025, dated 18.02.2025 inviting Expression of Interest (EOI) for
Empanelment of Printers/Publishers/Book Distributors for printing and
distribution of school textbooks/workbooks (with paper) for sale component to
the students studying in private schools for the Academic Years 2025-26 &
2026-27. The Writ Petitioner is aggrieved of the condition imposed in the
Notification by the Respondent No.1 fixing a threshold of minimum annual
turnover of Rs.10.00 Crores for each year for the last three financial years and
having the minimum of three printing machines of four colour web off-set
within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The last date for submission of
Expression of Interest (EOI) was fixed as 05.03.2025.
3
3. While the Tender Notification was issued on 18.02.2025, the Writ
Petitioner has submitted a Representation immediately on 20.02.2025 to the
Respondent No.1. It is stated by the Writ Petitioner in its Representation that
the current eligibility requirement with a minimum annual turnover of Rs.10.00
Crores for each of the last three financial years is onerous. Since the
threshold was fixed at 5.00 Crores in the previous tender Ex.P.2 (Colly), the
A.P. Web Offset Printers Association had addressed a letter to the
Commissioner of Industries on 25.02.2025 to the effect that the conditions
imposed in the Tender dated 18.02.2025 are not only onerous but are also in
violation of the mandatory norms as fixed for MSME category of industries.
The A.P. Web Offset Printers Association had requested the Respondent No.1
to issue necessary directions to the Director of A.P Government Text Book
Press for MSME category of Industries to allot 25% work to the printing
MSMEs as per Central Government guidelines, vide G.O.Rt.No.103 Industries
and Commerce (P&I) Department dated 15.05.2020. It was also reminded to
the Respondent No.1 that during the financial year 2024-2025, the
Government Text Book Order was awarded to MSMEs only.
4. The Commissioner of Industries Department, having received a letter
dated 25.02.2025 from the A.P. Web Offset Printers Association (Ex.P.2 colly)
had inturn addressed a letter to the Director, A.P Government Text Book
Press on 28.02.2025 (Ex.P.7) requesting the said Director of A.P Government
Text Book Press (Respondent No.3) to take necessary action to allot 25%
work to local registered printing MSMEs as per A.P MSME new procurement
policy.
5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the Director, A.P
Government Text Book Press (Respondent No.3) has neither replied to the
request made by the Writ Petitioner through its Representation dated
20.02.2025 nor has initiated any action at the request made by the
Commissioner of Industries Department through his communication dated
28.02.2025 (Ex.P.7)
4
6. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Writ Petitioner as well
as the A.P. Web Offset Printers Association have made a request at the
earliest point of time, whereas the Director of A.P Government Text Book
Press (Respondent No.3) has not rendered any decision, one way or the
other. It is submitted that, it was incumbent on the part of the Respondent
No.3 to either accept or decline to accept the Representation well before last
date of submission of the Tender/Expression of Interest (EOI) i.e., fixed on
05.03.2025. It is stated that not only the Writ Petitioner but also all the
members of the A.P. Web Offset Printers Association were waiting anxiously
for the response from the Respondent No.3 well before the deadline date.
7. As seen from the record, it appears that the Writ Petitioner as well as
the A.P. Web Offset Printers Association who are diligent enough to have
approached the Respondent No.3 at the earliest point of time. It can be seen
from the record that, while the Notification was published on 18.02.2025, the
Writ Petitioner has submitted a Representation on 20.02.2025 and the A.P.
Web Offset Printers Association has made a Representation on 25.02.2025.
Since the Representations came at the earliest point of time, there is
incumbent public duty that is cast upon Respondent No.3 to respond to the
Representations with proper justification.
8. Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, learned Government Pleader for
Higher Education has taken strong exception to the belated approach of the
Writ Petitioner in approaching this Court by filing the present Writ Petition
much after the last date for submission of the Tenders which got over by 2.30
P.M on 05.03.2025.
9. Learned Government Pleader has also placed reliance on Para
No.20 of the Judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in National
Highways Authority of India Vs. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Limited :
(2018) 8 SCC 243.
5
10. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on
Para Nos.22 & 23 of the Judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
Ram Autar Singh Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. in Civil
Appeal No.13806 of 2024, dated 04.12.2024. Para Nos.22 & 23 are usefully
extracted hereunder:
“22. In the present case, neither is there accrual of any parallel right
of a third party nor could grant of relief cause confusion and public
inconvenience. There has also been no occasion for the State
authorities to claim that they are in any manner handicapped to
defend their action. On the contrary, this is a case where the
appellant sought to explain the belated approach by referring to his
repeated unyielding persuasions, which the High Court brushed aside
mechanically, without appreciating that the appellant had invoked its
writ jurisdiction for enforcement of his Fundamental Rights under
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. When a litigant approaches a
high court invoking its high prerogative writ jurisdiction with a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that the impugned State
action is in breach of his Fundamental Right and claims that the
breach be bridged by issuing appropriate writ/order/direction as
distinguished from a claim for enforcement of a statutory right, it
partakes the character of a duty on the part of such high court to
enforce the right breached as the guardian of the Constitution. Law is
well-settled that there is no loss of a Fundamental Right for non-
exercise thereof and also that there cannot be waiver of a
Fundamental Right. Hence, no argument can commend acceptance
that a litigant seeking enforcement of his Fundamental Right should
be declined relief in all cases of a belated approach. Notwithstanding
delay, which might not have been explained to the full satisfaction of
a high court, we hold that in cases where a high court finds that facts,
as they have been presented, are not seriously disputed, no further
investigation into facts is required to be made, the relief claimed in
the petition was otherwise due to the writ petitioner and the same
would have followed as a matter of course and been granted had he
approached the high court without delay, it would be iniquitous and
inappropriate to deny relief for no better reason than that the relief
has been belatedly claimed.
23. The writ petition of the appellant provided an opportunity to the
High Court to right the wrong which, unfortunately, it failed to seize. It
is with a deep sense of regret that we end the discussion here
expressing hope that as the sentinel on the qui vive, the high courts
in the country would do well not to mechanically dismiss writ petitions
on the ground of delay and laches without considering all the relevant
factors.”
11. Having considered the facts mentioned hereinabove, this Court is of
the prima-facie opinion that there is lapse on the part of the Respondent No.3
6
in giving a proper reply to the Representation submitted by the Writ Petitioner
dated 20.02.2025 and the Representation submitted by the A.P. Web Offset
Printers Association dated 25.02.2025. This Court has also noticed the fact
that not only the Writ Petitioner but also the A.P. Web Offset Printers
Association have approached the Respondent No.3 at the earliest point of
time by submitting their Representations. In view of serious Representation
made by the Writ Petitioner, this Court is also of the prima-facie opinion that
there is mandatory public duty cast upon the Respondent No.3 to furnish the
response one way or the other well before the last date for submitting the
Expression of Interest (EOI) i.e., on or before 2.30 PM on 05.03.2025. Having
failed to perform such elementary public duty, this Court is of the opinion that
it does not lie in the mouth of the Official Respondents to raise a technical
plea that the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage.
12. In the above premise, this Court is inclined to issue following
directions in order to balance the interest of both the parties :
a) the Writ Petitioner shall submit the Application/Expression of Interest
(EOI) to the Respondent No.3 within two days from today;
b) the Respondent No.3 is directed to receive the Application of the
Writ Petitioner without reference to the date of deadline (05.03.2025)
as indicated in the Tender Notification dated 18.02.2025 (Ex.P.1);
c) upon receipt of such Application, Respondent No.3 shall process the
same along with all other Applications;
d) it is clarified that that the consideration of the Writ Petitioner for
Empanelment for supply of Government Text Books shall be subject
to the final outcome in the present Writ Petition.
13. Tag this Writ Petition along with W.P.No.5345 of 2025 and list both
the Writ Petitions on 01.04.2025.
7
14. Let pleadings be complete in the meantime.
______________________________________
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 12.03.2025
Note: Issue C.C by today
B/o : JKS