IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12650 of 2007 Between: M/s. Nani Krishna Emporium, rep byits Managing Partner J.V. Raja RAo Main Road, Kakinada East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary, Education (CSS-R&E) Department, Secrtariat, Hyderabad. 2 Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Andhra Pradesh rep by its State Project Director, Hyderabad. 3 Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Andhra Pradesh rep by its Additional Project Coordinator, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 4 District Educational Officer, East Godavari district, Kakinada .....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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to deliver the goods as per the tender sanction approval dated 08-08-2005 and not considering the various representations of the petitioner including the one date 11-12-2006 and causing huge loss of investment of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of natural justice etc and consequently direct the Respondents to pass appropriate Orders considering the representations of the petition pragmatically and to permit the petitioner to deliver the stocks of materials procured for delivery to the various schools suggested by the Respondents and pay the agreed amounts and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.V.ANANTHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&4: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by M/s. Nani Krishna Emporium, represented by its Managing Partner Sri J.V. Raja Rao with a prior to issue Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to deliver goods as per the tender sanction approval dated 08.08.2005 and not considering the various representations of the petitioner including the one dated 11.12.2006 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. It is stated that the petitioner participated in the tenders for supply of various items of Teaching Learning Equipment and became the successful bidder. He secured tender items for supplying as per the terms and conditions of the tender. Despite the petitioner procuring the items, the respondents have not issued necessary instructions with regard to supply of the same to the various schools. The petitioner submitted various representations including the one dated 11.12.2006 but the same was remained unattended. Hence it chose to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent filed counter affidavit. Sri D.N. Murthy, Additional Project Coordinator, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, had sworn to the affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit that in view of the sanction accorded for supply of TLE material to 218 schools in the district by the State Project Director, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad during 2004-2005 tenders have been called for, for procurement of TLE material and negotiations have been made by the District Level Purchasing Committee on 01.07.2005. Further, supply orders were also issued to the firms vide the office proceedings in Rc.No.9/SSA-5/2005, dated 8.08.2005. In the meanwhile the State Project Director, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, A.P. Hyderabad issued instructions stating that an adverse report appeared and the Hon’ble Minister of Education called for immediate report, hence stopped purchase of tender items until further orders. Further orders from the State Project Director, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, A.P. Hyderabad are awaited. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the terms and conditions of the tender, the petitioner submitted various items and became ready for supply. For want of instructions from the respondent, he could not supply the material to various schools. He also submitted that the petitioner had submitted representation to the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, A.P. Hyderabad on 11.12.2006 and the same is remained unattended. He further submits that a direction to the second respondent would meet the ends of justice. Learned Government Pleader for School Education submits that the tender relates only to the year 2005-2006. As the said tender expired as of now, the question of placing indents with the petitioner for supply of various items does not arise. Fact remains that the petitioner submitted its representation on 11.12.2006 to the third respondent and his representation remained unattended. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 11.12.2006 and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 16th June, 2008 Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary, Education (CSS-R&E) Department, Secrtariat, Hyderabad. 2 Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Andhra Pradesh rep by its State Project Director, Hyderabad. 3 Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Andhra Pradesh rep by its Additional Project Coordinator, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 4 District Educational Officer, East Godavari district, Kakinada 5 2 CCs to G.P. for Education, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.(OUT) 6 2 CD copies. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}