IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10186 of 2007 Between: The Retired Public Health Workers & badili Workers Society, rep by its President S. Devadanam S/o Chinnaiah R/o Devudu Cheruvu Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Ongole Municipality, rpe by its Commissioner, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Chairman, Ongole Municipal Council, Ongole Prakasam District. 3 The Health Officer, Ongole Municipality, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 Adarsh S.C.S.T. Development Welfare society, rep by its PResident, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Mamidipalem, Prakasam District. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, more particularly oneinthe anture of Writ of mandamus to declare the action ofthe Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in acceptingthe tender in favourofthe 4th respondent vide Resolution Nos. 712 and 713 dt 30-4-2007 in respect ofDivision Nos. 3 and 4 of Ongole Municipality, Pursuant to the tender notification Rocv. No. 50/2007-F2 dt 10-4-2007, illegal, improper and contraryto the Provisions of A.P. Municipalities Tender Rules, 1967 and consequently set a side the same by directingthe respondents to accept the tender of the Petitioner, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fitand proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 10186 of 2007 Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondents 1 and 2 in accepting the tender of respondent No.4 for cleaning/sanitary works for the year 2007-08. When the matter is taken up for admission, none appears for the petitioner nor is there any representation made on his behalf. However, a perusal of the tender notice indicates that the said notice was issued notifying certain sanitation works for the year 2007-08. In view of the fact that the very period of contract itself is already over and as there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 27.04.2009 Nsr