IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 6732 of 2008 Between: Sri Kanakamahalakshmi Mahila Mandali, H.No.44-15-62/1, Srinivasa Nagar Road, Thatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its President Smt. K. Bhagyalakshmi, ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, rep by its Commissioner. .....RESPONDENT 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 in refusing even to receive the application for renewing/extending work order dated 07-09-2007 which is going to be expired by 31.03.2008 only on the sole ground that they filed writ petition No.1029 of 2008 against his abrupt cancellation proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the respondent to receive and consider the representation dated 15.03.2008 for renewal/extending the work order dated 07.09.2007 in R.C.No.1020/2005/CMOH/F-4 for the work of sweeping and drainage cleaning in ward No.32 (old ward No.33), Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Sri N. Ranga Reddy The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted seeking directions to the respondent-Municipal Corporation to receive and process the application submitted by the writ petitioner for award of contract relating to sanitation work for the period commencing from 1st April 2008. Sri N. Ranga Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has very rightly pointed out that the Corporation, being a public authority, would not have failed to discharge its obligation of receiving any communication much less an offer made by a bidder or a tenderer. Therefore, if an application or a bid is submitted by the petitioner, the Corporation is bound to receive the same, entertain and process it and deal with the same in accordance with law. It is, therefore, open to the petitioner to adopt such modes of communication known to law and submit its bid/offer for participation in the sanitation work contract to be awarded. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 28th March 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}