THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.13215 of 2011 Between: T. Baleshwar Reddy PETITIONER And 1. The Chief Engineer (PR), RIAD, Hyderabad, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner Sri Koona Reddy Anji Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Court made the following ORDER: As desired by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner submitted his bid in response to a tender notification through e-procurement process for providing blacktop on PWD road from Theeded to Nelvaipally. The last date for submission of bids was 4.02.2011, 4.30 p.m. The technical bid was to be opened on 4.02.2011 at 5 p.m. and price bid on 7.02.2011 at 10.30 a.m. The petitioner states that he submitted his bid enclosing all the documents required as per the tender document. His grievance is that in spite of submitting all the documents, the respondents failed to accept his tender. He therefore submitted a representation on 11.04.2011 requesting the respondents to accept the tender. As the respondents were not inclined to do so, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the facts submits that the bid of the petitioner ought to have been accepted as he has submitted all the documents. He also submits that though another bidder, viz., M/s. Sri Sai Constructions did not disclose its on going works its bid had been considered. The counsel therefore submits that when the petitioner submitted all the required documents there was no reason for the respondents to reject the bid of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that since the petitioner does not possess road roller and hot mix plant, which are essential requirements for awarding the tender, his bid was not accepted. He further submits that even though the technical bid was opened on 4.02.2011 and the reasons were made known to the petitioner on the same day, he kept quiet since then, and hence not justified in agitating the issue. He further submits that the bid of M/s. Sri Sai Constructions was accepted on being convinced that the said agency complied with all the conditions. Accordingly an agreement was entered into on 4.04.2011 and the said bidder has already commenced the works as per the said agreement, and the same has to be completed within a period of nine months from the date of the agreement. He also submits that the petitioner being aware that the contract was awarded in favour of the said agency, failed to implead the said agency, and therefore he is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition. I have considered the rival contentions. Indisputably, the technical bid was opened on 4.02.2011 and the price bid was opened on 7.02.2011. If the petitioner had any objections he could have raised the same as soon as the technical bid was opened. Even according to the petitioner, he made his representation only on 11.04.2011 on which date agreement was entered into with M/s. Sri Sai Constructions. Even though it is the contention of the petitioner that he submitted all the required documents he is still required to satisfy that he possessed road roller and hot mix plant. Unless the petitioner satisfies the said requirement, there is no obligation on the part of the respondents to consider the bid of the petitioner. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, even though the writ petition was filed on 28.04.2011 and that the petitioner is aware that the contract was awarded in favour of M/s. Sri Sai Constructions, the said agency had not been impleaded in whose absence no orders affecting its interest can be passed. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 8th September, 2011. Js.