*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition No.14651 of 2010 % 14-03-2011 # K. Balanarasimha Reddy ..petitioner And $ The Principal Secretary to Govt. of A.P., Transport, R&B Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others ..Respondents !Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Venkateswarlu ^Counsel for respondents . : G.P for R & B, for R1 to R3 Sri E. Manohar, Sr. Counsel, for R-4 < Gist: > Head Note: Citations: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.14651 of 2010 ORDER: The Engineer-in-Chief, R & B, Administration and National Highways, Government of A.P., the 2nd respondent herein issued a tender notice dated 12-02-2008, published on 18-02-2008, inviting tenders for the work of construction of approaches to rail under bridge at Ghanpur, Warangal District. The petitioner emerged as the successful tenderer by quoting 3.69% excess over the estimated value. An agreement was also entered into by him. However, further progress in the work was stalled, on account of a communication dated 30-04-2008, said to have been received from the Railways. It was decided to construct rail over bridge (ROB), instead of rail under bridge (RUB). The respondents 2 and 3 have undertaken correspondence with the petitioner, to find out, whether he is willing and prepared to execute the work of rail over bridge, at the same rates. The petitioner expressed his willingness. The Government has also issued G.O.Rt.No.1676, dated 12-11-2008, paving the way for the entrustment of the work of construction of ROB to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent issued an e-procurement tender notice dated 27-05-2010 for the work of ROB, at an estimated cost of Rs.1506 lakhs. The petitioner, the 4th respondent and certain others submitted their tenders. It is stated that the 4th respondent was declared as the successful tenderer. The petitioner challenges the tender notice dated 27-05-2010. The contention of the petitioner is that, once his willingness to execute the works for construction of ROB was obtained, and Government accorded permission for it, there was no justification for the 2nd respondent to issue the impugned notice. He contends that the action of the respondents 1 to 3 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Counter-affidavits are filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, on the one hand, and respondent No.4, on the other hand. It is stated that though the Government issued orders in favour of the petitioner, for entrustment of the work of ROB, it was found that such course is impermissible in law, and that the nature of work, design, rates, etc., are substantially different from ROB, on the one hand, and RUB, on the other hand. Heard Sri K. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, and Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent. The petitioner emerged as the successful tenderer for the construction of approach roads to proposed RUB at Ghanpur. It is stated that an agreement was also entered into by him. Had the tenders been invited for the same work, even while the agreement in favour of the petitioner is in force, this Court would certainly have interfered. Having processed the matter to a substantial extent for construction of RUB, the respondents 1 to 3 have given up that idea, on an objection raised by the Railways. It is stated that the Railways have informed the State Government that it is not at all feasible to construct RUB at the identified place. Therefore, the option of construction of ROB was considered. It is rather surprising that the respondents 1 to 3 have thought it fit to entrust the work of construction of ROB to the petitioner, on the basis of the tenders submitted by him, for RUB. Such a decision can be taken, either when extraneous considerations play their role, or when the authorities act in indifferent, or negligent manner. At least, at subsequent stage, wisdom appears to have dawned, and tenders were invited for construction of ROB. The relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted on account of two reasons: The first is that he has submitted his tenders in response to the impugned tender notice, and thereby he has waived all his objections, if any. The second is that, he cannot be entrusted the work of construction of ROB, on the basis of a contract, between himself and the State Government, for construction of RUB. Viewed from any angle, the writ petition is devoid of merits, and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14-03-2011. KO