IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3130 of 2007 Between: B.Krishna Prasada Rao, S/o. Monarch, R/o.14-22, Parkal, Warangal Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Dept of Civil Supplies, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 A.P State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Errum Manzil Colony, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Managing Director 3 The Joint Collector-Cum-ex.officio Executive Director, A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Warangal, Warangal Dist. 4 The District Manager, A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation, Warangal, Warangal Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Srinivas Bobbili Counsel for the Respondents : Sri N. Subba Reddy O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare tender notification No. Movt.5(1)/Stage-11/2007-08 dated 06.02.2007 issued by respondent No.3 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same. On 19.02.2007, this Court, while admitting the writ petition, passed the following order: “ The tender application of the petitioner may also be received without insisting upon the enhanced EMD, security deposit and bank guarantee, if he has already satisfied the existing norms; if not, the petitioner shall furnish the deficit EMD, security deposit and bank guarantee to fulfill the existing norms, for which the tenders are called for. But the tender applications received from the petitioner and others in respect of the tender notification in question, shall not be finalized until further orders.” On 20.03.2007, the above re-produced order was modified as under: “ If the petitioner has not submitted any tender application, pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 19.02.2007, it is open for the respondents to proceed with further steps.” Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, stated that the petitioner has not submitted his tender application and, therefore, in view of the liberty given by this Court in the above mentioned modified order, the respondents proceeded with the tender notification and awarded the contract work in favour of the third parties. This statement of the learned counsel for the respondents is placed on record and the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 19th March 2008 ksld