Order As the issues involved in both these writ petitions are inter-related, both the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The writ petition in W.P.No.2561 of 2013 is filed with the prayer, which reads as under : “to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering/opening the technical bid submitted by the petitioner for the tender specification No. No. CGM/OP/RRZ: OT-16/2012-13 for carrying out repairs to distribution transformers at Suryapet SPM centre, Suryapet Division of Nalgonda circle, pursuant to the tender notification vide Specification No.CGM/OP/RRZ-*/2012-13, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider/open the aforesaid technical bid submitted by the petitioner.” 3. The writ petition in W.P.No.3230 of 2013 is filed with the prayer, which reads as under : “to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the letter no. CGM(O&M)/SE (O&M)/DE(O&M)-I/F/D.No. 2787/12, dated 01-02-2013 of the second respondent directing the first respondent to open 59 unopened bids and the consequential SMS issued by the first respondent on 02-02-2013 at 4.39.47 P.M. requesting the petitioners and others to attend the opening of the unopened SPM bids on 05-02-2013 at 11 A.M. in the office of the first respondent as illegal and void.” 4. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as arise in W.P.No.3230 of 2013. 5. The 1st respondent-Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, which is a licencee under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, has issued tender notice inviting bids for carrying out repairs to the failed 1-phase and 3-phase distribution transformers at various SPM (Special Periodical Maintenance) centres in Ranga Reddy North, South and East and in Nalgonda and Medak circles. Altogether, about 180 bids were submitted including that of the petitioners. Bids were opened on 19th January 2013, but the bids of 59 tenderers were not opened on the said date, on the ground that they did not comply with the tender conditions. Subsequently, on 2nd February 2013, petitioners were sent information through short message service (SMS) by the 1st respondent to attend for opening of unopened bids, on 5th February 2013 at 11 a.m. in their office. Subsequently, on 2nd February 2013, petitioners were sent information through short message service (SMS) by the 1st respondent to attend for opening of unopened bids, on 5th February 2013 at 11 a.m. in their office. The Chief General Manager (O&M) of the 1st respondent-Company has issued the impugned letter dated 01.02.2013, in letter No. CGM(O&M)/SE(O&M)/DE (O&M)-I/F/D.No.2787/12, which reads as under: “Adverting to letter cited above, it is requested to implement the following instructions regarding unopened 59 nos. bids of Chief General Manager/Operation/Ranga Reddy Zone. A. Bids can be opened in case of the following lapses occurred: i. Bids, where bidders not mentioned the name of the work and name of the bank but mentioned the details of DD No. and amount along with the details of SPM centre. ii. Bids, where bidders not mentioned the name of the work and name of the bank but mentioned the details of DD No. and amount along with the details of SPM center. iii. Bids, where bidders accepted the validity for 120 days and addressed the bid to Superintending Engineer/Operation. B. Bids can be returned unopened in case of the following lapses occurred: i. Bids, where bidders did not mention the bid security amount. ii. Bids, where bidders not furnished acceptance of terms of APCPDCL for payment. iii. Bid Specification No. superscribed on the envelope is not matching with the bid specification No. of the SPM centre. iv. Bids, where bidders submitted technical bid (Part-A) and price bid (part-B) separately without placing them in an outer sealed envelope.” 6. In this writ petition, petitioners, whose bids were opened on 19.01.2013, are questioning the impugned letter dated 01.02.2013, issued in Lr.No.CGM(O&M)/SE(O&M)/DE(O&M)-I/F/D.No.2787/ 12, on the ground that the said letter is issued without any authority of law and jurisdiction and the same runs contrary to the tender conditions. It is the case of petitioners that once the conditions are notified in the notice inviting bids, it is not open to the 2nd respondent to address letter to the 1st respondent, asking to open 59 bids, which were not opened earlier. 7. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents, by the Chief General Manager (Master Plan), APCPDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 7. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents, by the Chief General Manager (Master Plan), APCPDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. In the counter, while denying the allegations of petitioners, it is stated that the Distribution Company has invited tenders for carrying out repairs to the failed 1-phase and 3-phase Distribution Transformers (Conventional and CSP) types of all capacity, available at SPM. It is stated that as per the tender conditions, bidders have to superscribe certain information on the sealed bid cover, and in pursuance of the tender notice, number of persons have submitted their bids, and as there were minor lapses with regard to superscription on the bid cover, 59 number of bids were kept aside and necessary clarification was sought from the head office. It is stated that after taking into consideration the conditions of tender notification, the impugned letter is issued, clarifying the bids which can be opened, which is not in contravention of any tender conditions. It is stated that the lapses are of minor in nature and does not go to the root of the essential conditions prescribed in the tender notification. 8. It is submitted by Sri E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners that as per the tender conditions, superscription as detailed in the summary sheet of the tender notification must be invariably written on the bid cover, failing which, the bid cover will be returned unopened. It is submitted that having notified the specific conditions and having rejected 59 bids for non-compliance of such conditions, it is not open for the 2nd respondent to issue any directions contrary to the tender conditions. The learned counsel, in support of his argument, has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal Vs. Union of India & others (2002) 6 SCC 315 ). 9. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents that there is no violation of any essential conditions notified in the bid document. It is submitted that at the time of opening of bids, some of the bids were not opened in view of minor deviations and when clarification was sought, the impugned letter was issued by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that at the time of opening of bids, some of the bids were not opened in view of minor deviations and when clarification was sought, the impugned letter was issued by the 2nd respondent. It is stated that where the essential conditions are violated, in the impugned letter itself, it is stated that such bids are to be returned unopened, and only in case of minor deviations which are not in violation of essential conditions, clarification is issued for opening of such bids. The learned Standing Counsel, in support of his argument, has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works & others (1991) 3 SCC 273 ). 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the notice inviting bids and the instructions to the bidders and summary sheet. In the notice inviting bids, there is a condition for superscription as detailed in the summary sheet of specification on the bid cover, but at the same time, the eligibility of bidders and compulsory enclosures to the technical bid (part-A), are notified under condition Nos.16 and 17. The said conditions read as under : “16. Compulsory Enclosures to Technical Bid (Part-A) : 1. Filled in Bid form. 2. Rs.2,100/- DD towards cost of tender specification. 3. Rs.50,000/- DD towards Bid Security. 4. Filled in Schedules-I to XIII. 5. Check list of confirmations. 6. Copy of valid ‘A’ grade license issued by CEIG of A.P. 7. A set of test results conducted on recently repaired or manufactured DTR. 17. Eligibility for Bidders : i) The bidder should have a minimum experience of 2 years in the field of repairing/ manufacturing of DTRs and they should have repaired/manufactured a minimum of 20 Nos. of 1-Phase DTRs and 40 Nos. 3-Phase DTRs of various capacities in one continuous period of 12 months in any discom or anywhere in a Government organization (Refer Schedule VIII). ii) The Bidder should produce at least Rs.10.00 lakhs turnover in any one year during the last preceding 5 financial years (Refer Schedule V). iii) Valid ‘A’ Grade license upto a minimum of 11 kv issued from CEIG, Hyderabad. ii) The Bidder should produce at least Rs.10.00 lakhs turnover in any one year during the last preceding 5 financial years (Refer Schedule V). iii) Valid ‘A’ Grade license upto a minimum of 11 kv issued from CEIG, Hyderabad. iv) At least ten (10) numbers of DTRs repaired/manufactured should be in successful operation since 2 years as on the date of opening of the Bid (Certificates by Divisional Engineer/Transformers in respect of DTRs repaired and Divisional Engineer/Operation in respect of DTRs manufactured are to be enclosed). v) % of RGP failures shall be less than 12. A certificate shall be enclosed issued by Divisional Engineer/Transformers). vi) Test reports of recently repaired DTRs of any capacity shall be as per relevant ISS as mentioned at Para 3.15 and the date of test shall not be later than 5 years.” When the bids were opened on 19.01.2013, certain bid covers were not opened and a clarification was sought from the 2nd respondent. Even the impugned letter issued by the 2nd respondent, is in the shape of clarification to open the bids where bidders have not mentioned the name of work, but mentioned the details of SPM centre, where bidders have not mentioned the name of work and name of the bank, but mentioned the details of DD numbers and the amount along with the details of SPM centre and where the bidders have accepted the validity for 120 days and addressed the bids to the Superintending Engineer/Operation. In the same letter, instructions are issued to return the unopened covers, where the lapses are substantial in nature, namely, where bidders did not mention the bid security amount, where bidders have not furnished the acceptance of terms of APCPDCL for payment, where the bid specification number superscribed on the envelope is not matching with the bid specification number of the SPM centre and where the bidders have submitted technical bid (Part-A) and price bid (Part-B) separately without placing them in an outer sealed envelope etc. 11. Law on the issue is well settled in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court right from the case of C.J. Fernandez Vs. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 488 ). 11. Law on the issue is well settled in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court right from the case of C.J. Fernandez Vs. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 488 ). It is repeatedly held by the Apex Court that basically the conditions can be divided into two parts; those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and those which are merely ancillary or subsidiary to the essential conditions. It is held that if essential conditions are violated, the question of condoning the same will not arise, but in cases where there is violation of minor and non-essential conditions, such conditions can be waived when the tenderer complies with the substantial conditions. In the instant case also, it is true that as per tender condition No.6, superscription is to be made on the covers, but from the impugned letter, it is clear that no part of eligibility criteria is interfered with and the essential conditions are not diluted, and hence, it cannot be said that the letter issued by the 2nd respondent is either illegal or arbitrary. In fact, it is not an independent order passed by the 2nd respondent, but in view of the doubts arose to the 1st respondent during the course of opening of bids, when a clarification is sought by him, the impugned letter is issued clarifying to the 1st respondent about the bids which can be opened and which cannot be. In the judgment relied on by Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents in the case of Poddar Steel Corporation (2 supra), while referring to the earlier case law in the case of C.J. Fernandez (3 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as a matter of general proposition, it cannot be held that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail, and is not entitled to waive even a technical irregularity of little or no significance, and that the requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories – those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and those which are merely ancillary or subsidiary. It is further held that in the case of essential conditions, the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly, and in the case of ancillary or subsidiary conditions, it is open to the authority to deviate from the same and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of such conditions, in appropriate cases. This Court is of the view that the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case, supports the case of respondents. From the impugned letter, it is clear that the essential conditions and eligibility criteria notified by the respondents is not interfered with and only the ancillary and subsidiary conditions imposed in the tender notice are interfered with, by clarifying to the 1st respondent for opening of bids 59 in number, which were not opened earlier. Though reliance is placed by Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal (1 supra) in support of his argument that non-fulfillment of required conditions shall result in rejection of bids, it all depends on the facts of each case and also on the conditions which are ordered to be deviated. In the case on hand, the essential conditions are notified under condition Nos.16 and 17 and such conditions are not at all interfered with, by the impugned letter and the said letter is issued in clarification to the ancillary and subsidiary conditions, therefore, it cannot be said that issuance of such letter is either arbitrary or illegal. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned letter issued by the 2nd respondent, so as to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P.No.3230 of 2013 is dismissed. W.P.No.2561 of 2013 is disposed of, with a direction to open the bid of the petitioner therein, and take further steps in accordance with the directions issued in the letter impugned in W.P.No.3230 of 2013, issued by the 2nd respondent. No costs. 13. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in both the writ petitions, shall stand closed.