THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27795 of 2010 Date:23.02.2011 Between: B.Babu Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Khammam and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for Respondents: Sri Krishna Reddy, for Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, standing counsel for APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “…..to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the illegal action of the respondents in not accepting the tender schedules and not entering into agreement with the petitioner/contractor in respect of the item of works in tender notice No.M1/122(1)/2010 RM/Khammam dt.21.09.2010 in spite of fulfilling all conditions and becoming highest bidder is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Tender Rules and regulations and Art.14, 19 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to accept tenders of the petitioner by entering into agreement with the item of works; toilets maintenance and sleeping at the Bus Depots of Khammam, Kothagudem, Palvancha, Bhadrachalam, Illendu, Munuguru and Palair APSRTC Depots in connected with Tender Notice No.M1/221(1)/2010 RM/Khammam dt.21.09.2010 and pass such other order or orders…” On 08.02.2011, there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was adjourned for being posted under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Even today, when the case is called, there is no representation for the petitioner. Sri Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. appearing for the respondents, on instructions, stated that the petitioner has failed in technical bid and that besides the said fact, the entire tender process initiated in pursuance of the impugned tender notice was withdrawn due to administrative reasons. The learned standing counsel further submitted that the petitioner has taken back the E.M.D. paid by him. In view of the above facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35459 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd February, 2011 GHN