THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA W.P.Nos. 22175, 22632, 26500 and 26807 of 2011. COMMON ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) These writ petitions are filed by the Municipal Contractors Welfare Association, a registered society; by several Labour Contractors Co- operative Societies and individuals challenging several e-procurement notifications issued by the Karimnagar Municipal Corporation (the respondent Corporation). The grievance of the petitioners is that calling for tenders for works by e-procurement methodology, contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 20 (IT&C) dt. 6.7.2004, is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners seek a consequent direction to the respondent Corporation to follow the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 20 dt. 6.7.2004. W.P.No. 26500 of 2011 is an illustrative of the generality of grievances urged in this batch of writ petitions. The individual petitioners assert that they are engaged in executing small contract works within the territorial limits of the respondent Corporation. The writ petitioners are associations of such contractors constituted either as Labour Contract Co-operative Societies or Municipal Contractors Welfare Association and therefore the cause of all the writ petitioners is thus identical. Several works in respect of which the impugned e-procurement notifications were issued are works of value below 10 lakhs. It is the grievance of the petitioners that as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 20 dt. 6.7.2004, being executive orders issued in exercise of the powers under Article 162 of the Constitution by the Information, Technology and Communication Department, only the works of value more than 10 lakhs shall be procured under e-procurement methodology. The essential grievance of the petitioners however is not regarding mere violation or transgression by the respondent Corporation of the orders in G.O.Ms.No. 20 dt. 6.7.2004. They assert that as they are contractors executing small works they do not have necessary skills to bid under e-procurement matrix and that the action of the respondent Corporation in pursuing and finalising the contracts by following the e-procurement methodology denies them a fair access to public works. The petitioners place reliance on the Judgement of a learned single Judge of this Court dt. 21.12.2009 in W.P. No. 25945 of 2009 wherein a notification dt. 12.11.2009 issued by the Adilabad Municipality notifying tenders through e-procurement for about 50 works of value between 1 to 2 lakhs was challenged by the Municipal Civil Contractors Association, Adilabad, similarly alleging that e- procurement notification violates the orders issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 20 dt. 6.7.2004. The counter filed by the Adilabad Municipality asserted that e-procurement process was resorted to on the basis of the directions issued in G.O.Ms.No. 171 (Municipal Administration) Department dt. 1.5.2004 and the Administrative Directions of the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Department dt. 13.10.2008. While allowing the writ petition, this Court recorded as under: Nobody found any difficulty in receiving tenders by receiving documents for works of this nature physically. As observed earlier, except the unwarranted fascination for computers, no meaningful purpose can be achieved by insisting on submission of tenders through e-procurement for small works. At any rate, the department of information Technology and Communication has taken a definite view, that it is only the works above Rs. 10 lakhs, that can be handled through e- procurement. The Municipal Administration Department does not appear to have taken this into account. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has sensitised us to the principle of genesis and evolution of the e-procurement methodology adopted by the State. According to Counsel, the State initially issued G.O.Ms.No. 2 Information, Technology and Communication Department dt. 15.1.2003 introducing e-procurement process for engineering works, for procurement of goods and service of a value of Rupees one crore and above. In G.O.Ms.No. 415 dt. 5.9.2003 issued by the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, e- procurement procedure was adopted in the Public Works Department as well, in respect of works of a value of Rupees one Crore and above. In G.O.Ms.No. 572 MA&UD dt. 19.12.2003, the State Government ordered that e-procurement shall be adopted in all Heads of Departments under the administrative control of Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department including all Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities in respect of all purchases costing Rs. 10 lakhs and above, taken up with Government funds. In G.O.Ms.No. 171 MA&UD dt. 1.5.2004, orders were issued agreeing for adoption of e-procurement in all the Urban Local Bodies, Public Health Engineering Department, APUSP, HMWS&SB and Urban Development authorities in respect of works/material costing above Rs. 1.00 lakh. In G.O.Ms.No. 20 dt. 6.7.2004 which is the linchpin for the petitioners to campaign for relief in this batch of writ petitions, the State Government ordered that all Departments, Public Sector undertakings and Local Bodies of the Government shall procure works of an estimated value of Rs. 10 laks and above; goods and service on estimated value of Rs. 5 lakhs and above through e-procurement only from 1.7.2004. Neither expressly nor by any compelling implication of the orders in G.O.Ms.No. 20, earlier orders under G.O.Ms.No. 171 dt. 1.5.2004 were over-ruled. In any event all the above orders are executive orders issued by the State in the purported exercise of powers under Article 162 of the Constitution and in the absence of any antinomy between the orders in G.O.Ms.No. 171 and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No. 20, no issue arises for judicial review as G.O.Ms.No. 20 would not eclipse or over-rule the orders in G.O.Ms.No. 171. While G.O.Ms.No. 20 was issued by the Information Technology & Communication Department, G.O.Ms.No. 171 has been issued by the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department. In any event, these two Government orders are reconcilable by holding that while G.O.Ms.No. 20 makes it mandatory for all Departments, Public Sector Undertakings and Local Bodies of the State Government to procure all works of value of Rs. 10 lakhs and above, goods and service of value of Rs. 5 lakhs and above, only through e-procurement with effect from 1.7.2004; G.O.Ms.No. 171 enables e-procurement process to be followed in Urban Local Bodies, Public Health Engineering Departments and other enumerated departments and authorities, in respect of products/materials of value Rs. 1.00 lakh and above. The orders in G.O.Ms.No. 171 do not run foul of the orders in G.O.Ms.No. 20. On such harmonious interpretation of the two Government Orders, they are seen to be neither facially nor textually inconsistent with each other. Regarding the reliance placed by the petitioners on the Judgement of this Court in W.P.No. 25945 of 2009, we are in respectful disagreement with the conclusions recorded therein. The public power under the Indian Constitutional scheme is consecrated to the three branches of the State i.e. Legislative, Executive and Judiciary apart from a division under the federal scheme, between the Union and the States. The Judicial branch normally does not enter upon pronouncing value judgements on administrative and legislative choices made by the other branches of Government, unless those choices are clearly perverse or in transgression of any controlling law like the Constitution or legislation. In the absence of such clear error or transgression of the limits of the legislative or executive branches, the judicial branch does not enter into nor sit in appeal over the wisdom of the choices made by the Executive. Whether e-procurement as a methodology for awarding contracts by the State and its instrumentalities is wise or whether it should be adopted for contracts of a particular value, are matters normatively within the exclusive domain of the Executive Branch. It is normally beyond the purview of this Court to pronounce upon the wisdom of policy choices made by the State in this area. The mere fact that the petitioners who are small contractors executing works of lower values would face difficulties in adapting to the e-procurement matrix is not a ground for invalidating the legitimate choices made by the State expressed by way of orders in G.O.Ms.No. 171. It is represented by the Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the stay orders granted by this Court in some of these writ petitions, the petitioners did not apply to participate in the bids pursuant to the impugned e-procurement notifications and the time for the same has expired. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to extend the time for submission of their bids. This Court is not inclined to issue such a direction. Sri.Jelli Kanakaiah, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that if the petitioners make a representation, the same would be considered by the respondents. This submission on behalf of the respondent Corporation is placed on record. On the aforesaid reasons, we find no merits in the writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _____________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J 28.09.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA W.P.Nos. 22175, 22632, 26500 and 26807 of 2011. COMMON ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt. 28.09.2011.