IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT APPEAL No : 05 OF 2010 Between: Bellampalli egion Coal Tippers Owners Welfare Society, Regd., No. 441/2007, Bellampalli, rep., by its Secretary, Ega Venkata Swamy, Bellampalli, Adilabad District. ... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER AND The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director and others. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.A.No. 05 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (PER: GR, J) Heard Sri R.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vidya Sagar Rao, learned counsel for R6. This is an appeal directed against the judgment dated 29-10- 2009 dismissing W.P.No. 11231 of 2009. The 1st respondent-Company (an instrumentality of the State) invited tenders for the purpose of transportation of coal from Dorli Open Cast Project-1 to different coal handling plants/screening plants on weight basis for a period of five years. The petitioner, the 6th respondent and other agencies submitted their bids (tenders). On the basis of the rates quoted, the 6th respondent and the petitioner were considered as L1 and L2. The 1st respondent-company also held negotiations with the petitioner for allotting part of the work, at the rates quoted by the 6th respondent while considering the bid of the 6th respondent as the most competitive bid. The writ petition was filed challenging the acceptance of the bid of the 6th respondent for entering into a contract. The challenge was primarily on the ground that the 6th respondent did not have the requisite qualifications; the 6th respondent partnership came into existence subsequent to the date of the tender notification; and the Managing Partner of the said respondent does not have the stipulated experience. It was further claimed that the petitioner is a society comprising owners of trucks and its members had offered their services for several years in the transportation of coal. Before the learned single Judge the 1st respondent-company asserted that on evaluation of several bids the rates quoted by the 6th respondent were found to be the most competitive; that as regards eligibility the petitioner and the 6th respondent stand on an equal footing this being first venture for both these parties; and when the 1st respondent offered to assign part of work to it i.e., 30% at the rate quoted by the 6th respondent, the petitioner did not respond taking the position that it had filed a writ petition. The learned single Judge considered the challenge to the award of work to the 6th respondent, the defense to this action preferred by the 1st respondent-company and the averments in the counter of the 6th respondent as well, wherein the non-official respondent had claimed that it’s Managing Partner had gained experience as an employee in a transport company which was awarded a contract by the 1st respondent earlier. In the judgment under appeal, it was rightly concluded that neither the petitioner- society nor the 6th respondent has established per se previous experience in a similar work. The petitioner was not earlier assigned any contract in its capacity as a ‘society’. It merely claims for itself the experience of it’s members as truck operators. On the other hand, the 6th respondent is a partnership firm and it’s Managing Partner was an employee with the transport contractor and other members of the partnership are also experienced in the transport operations. The petitioner and the 6th respondent as well claim possession of vehicles owned either by individual members (in the case of the petitioner) or vehicles hired (in the case of the 6th respondent). In the circumstances, the 1st respondent-company had found the rates quoted by the 6th respondent as the most competitive, the margin between two quotations being of the order of Rs.12 crores. The learned single Judge has also held that though the 1st respondent had offered a part of the contract to the petitioner at the rates quoted by the 6th respondent, the petitioner failed to take up this offer and in the circumstances no case was made out for interference in judicial review. At the admission hearing of this appeal Sri R.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the appellant states that after dismissal of the writ petition and when the appellant and 6th respondent in the writ petition as L2 and L1 respectively, were called for negotiations and at such negotiations the appellant herein had quoted rates lower than the rates initially quoted by L1-6th respondent in the writ petition. But nevertheless, the first respondent company is proceeding to award a contract in favour of the 6th respondent. If that be so, then such conduct on the part of the 1st respondent company would constitute perhaps an independent grievance and may legitimize separate writ petition. That however is not the subject matter of the writ petition and not in the appeal. We find no error in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion by the learned single Judge warranting appellate interference. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall however be no order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Dated: 12-10-2010 Pvks/lmv