THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 3917 OF 2011 Dt: 28-02-2011 Between: M/s. Afsar Riaz Construction Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Partner Afsar Riaz, O/o. 12-5-65/1 # 316, Vijayapuri, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. …..Petitioner And The Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railways, III Floor, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad & another. …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3917 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is a partnership firm. It submitted a tender in response to the notification dated 6.9.2010, issued by the Divisional Railway Manager (Works), South Central Railways, i.e., 2nd respondent herein for certain works. The tender submitted by the petitioner was not accepted on the ground that the required experience certificate under the tender condition was not filed. The letter dated 27.1.2011 was issued in this regard. The petitioner challenges the said letter. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier the same persons used to carry the business in the name of M/s. Sri Vijaya Durga Constructions, Sri Vijaya Durga Industries and Sri Vijaya Durga Enterprises and that the persons who are Proprietors thereof have became a partnership firm i.e., the petitioner herein. The petitioner-firm stated that the 2nd respondent issued credential certificates to the petitioner-firm and the same should be treated as valid for any tenders submitted by the petitioner. Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Murthy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not clear as to when the firm was constituted with the present partners. The tender notice contained the condition to the effect that certificates evidencing experience for similar works must be filed. The petitioner did not file any experience certificate of its own. On the other hand, it filed the certificate issued in favour of M/s. Vijaya Durga Constructions. Though that was a proprietary concern, it is no longer in force and there is nothing to disclose that the proprietor therein is the partner of the petitioner. At any rate, the petitioner could have claimed the experience of an individual partner in his individual capacity. The 2nd respondent has taken into account various aspects including the representation submitted by the petitioner and arrived at a proper conclusion. This Court is not inclined to take a different view in this matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Dt: 28.02.2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 3917 OF 2011 DATE: 28.02.2011