IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9376 of 2008 Between : S. Ravi Shankar, R/o 5-5-299, Sarojini Devi layout, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Venkateswara University, rep by its Registrar, Tirupati, 4 Prof S. Jaya Rama Reddy Former Vice Chancellor, S.V. University, Tirupati, 5 Prof. N. Prabhakara Rao, Former Registrar, Professor, Department of Physics, SV. University, Tirupati 6 Executive Council of SV. University rep by its Chairman, Vice-Chancellor, S.V. university, Tirupathi. .....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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent 1 in not initiating any action against the irregularities committed by the respondents 3 to 5 in the matter of awarding contract and granting interest free mobilization advance in respect of the Civil Work Contract, and consequently direct the respondent 1 to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 5 to recover the financial loss incurred to the institution and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.SRINIVAS DAMMALAPATI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9376 of 2008 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy) This writ petition, though it is not expressly stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is in the nature of public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not initiating any action against the alleged irregularities committed by respondent Nos.3 to 5. During the year 2006-07, the State of Andhra Pradesh have decided to establish a new University namely Sri Yogi Vemana University with its headquarters in Kadapa. Necessary funds were granted to develop the infrastructure required for the University i.e. for construction of buildings for colleges, hostels, health center, guesthouse, etc. Though at first instance tender notice was issued on 17.02.2006, but however, on the ground that there was some ambiguity, tenders were not accepted and after issuing fresh tender notice, construction works were awarded to the Firm by name S.V.E.C. Constructions Limited, Hyderabad. Though the bid quoted by the said Company was initially at 9.90% excess over the estimated cost, but however, in view of their subsequent letter reducing the rates, their bid was accepted at the rate of 4.229% in excess of the estimated rate. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that whenever the rates are quoted at above 5% in excess of the estimated cost, such of the cases are to be referred to the Government, but inspite of the fact that the offer made by S.V.E.C. Constructions Limited was at 9.90% in excess over the estimated cost, the contract was awarded to the said Firm. It is also stated that there are guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.94, I & CAD (PW & D) Department, dated 01.07.2003 for payment of mobilization advance, but however, respondents have released the mobilization advance to the said Firm, without charging any interest. Referring to the above said irregularities, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of respondent No.1 against the unofficial respondents, as illegal and arbitrary. Though it is not stated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is a suspended employee of the University. The writ petition is filed, though not expressly stated again, as a writ petition in public interest, only in view of the nature of relief sought for. There is no indication of any previous activities of the petitioner in public interest. Even according to the petitioner, the works were awarded by issuing tender notices and by inviting open bids, and ultimately, the rate was reduced by the successful bidder i.e. S.V.E.C. Constructions Limited to 4.229% in excess of the estimated rate. When the excess rate is reduced to below 5% of the estimated rate, there was no occasion for referring the matter to the Government for finalization of the tender. Even with regard to grant of mobilization advance without charging interest, though it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that it is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.94, I & CAD (PW & D) Department, dated 01.07.2003, but however, it is to be noted that the bids offered by S.V.E.C. Constructions Limited were accepted by the Works and Building Committee in its meeting held on 29.03.2006 and as per rules, the matter was also placed before the Executive Council and the Executive Council has approved the same in its meeting held on 31.03.2006. Though some allegations are made with regard to the quality of construction made by the successful bidder namely M/s.S.V.E.C. Constructions Limited, but the said Company is not even made as party- respondent to this writ petition. Even according to the petitioner, the works were awarded in the year 2006, and at no point of time, the petitioner has questioned the award of the contract. The works were approved by the Works and Building Committee and further approved by the Executive Council of the University, which is a Statutory body under the Universities Act. The petitioner, only by making the high-ranking officials of the University namely the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of the University as parties to this writ petition, alleges irregularities at this point of time. Though the Executive Council is made a party-respondent, but members of the Executive Council, which has ultimately approved the award of the contract with the condition of payment of mobilization advance, are not made parties to this writ petition. When the works are awarded by a competent Committee and further approved by the Executive Council of the University, which is a statutory body, it is not open for the petitioner to file this writ petition at this stage, under the guise of public interest litigation, seeking directions by way of Mandamus. Further, in the absence of any public spirited activities undertaken by the petitioner and also in view of the fact that petitioner is a suspended employee of the University, we do not find any substance in the writ petition so as to grant the relief as prayed for. It appears that the petitioner, only for redressal of his personal grudges against the University officials, has filed this writ petition as a belated attempt. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 28th April 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr To: 1 The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Registrar, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 4 Prof S. Jaya Rama Reddy Former Vice Chancellor, S.V. University, Tirupati. 5 Prof. N. Prabhakara Rao, Former Registrar, Professor, Department of Physics, SV. University, Tirupati. 6 The Chairman, Executive Council of S.V. University, Tirupathi.