THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 952 of 2011. JUDGEMENT: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Heard Sri.P.Venugopal, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government pleader for Agriculture representing 1st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri.Anjaneyulu for the 3rd respondent. There is no representation on behalf of the 4th respondent. This appeal is directed against an interlocutory order 5.11.2011 passed by a learned Judge in W.P.M.P.No. 36686 of 2011 in W.P.No. 29622 of 2011 whereby the learned single Judge declined to exercise discretion to grant the interim relief; namely a direction to the respondents to award the contract to the appellant, in respect of the work of construction of Investor Godowns with 40000 Metric Tons at Gudivada, Krishna District, in terms of the Tender Notification No. SWC/CONF/1919/PEG-2008/PPP/10-11 dt. 17.9.2010, and in view of the representation of the petitioner dt. 7.9.2011 by reconsidering the case of the petitioner de hors proceedings bearing No. SWC/CS3/1919/PEG- 2008/PPP/10-11 (G.Wada) dt. 22.9.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent as well as the Circular of the 4th respondent bearing reference No. 4/3/07 dt. 3.3.2007, pending the writ petition. The petitioner was the 2nd lowest tenderer (L.2) in the bids submitted pursuant to the tender notification issued by the 2nd respondent for the aforementioned works. According to the petitioner, as L1 was not technically qualified, it did not take up the work awarded. Thereafter, the petitioner represented to the 2nd respondent to accept its tender as the next lowest tenderer. As no orders were passed, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court whereat a direction was issued to the 2nd respondent to consider the it’s representation. By the order dt. 22.9.2011, the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Circular No. 4/3/07 dt. 3.3.2007 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission forbids grant of a contract to the next lowest tenderer in the event the 1st lowest tenderer declines to take up the work. Having noticed the circumstances, the learned single Judge was not inclined to exercise discretion to issue a direction to the respondents to award the work in favour of the petitioner/appellant. Sri.Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the Circular issued by the Central Vigilance Commission is not binding on the 2nd respondent which a State Instrumentality, in no way subordinate to the 4th respondent which is a federal authority and that in the circumstances, the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the petitioner’s tender being the 2nd lowest tenderer, without reference to the 4th respondent’s Circular. In the facts and circumstances, without pronouncing any opinion as to whether the 4th respondent’s Circular is binding on the 2nd respondent or if it is binding, or whether the 4th respondent’s guidelines are merely persuasive or may be adopted or followed by the 2nd respondent, we discern no infirmity in the exercise of discretion by the learned single Judge in declining to grant the interim order as prayed for, warranting appellate interference in this intra court appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 07.12.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 952 of 2011. JUDGEMENT: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt. 07.12.2011.