THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11397 OF 2009 Dated: 06.10.2009 Between: MCH Electrical Contractors Association(Regd.No.954), # 13-6-579/5, Karwan Sahu, Hyderabad, rep. By its President Syed Moinuddin. … Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By it Principal Secretary, Municipal Admn. & Urban Development Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad., and 2 others. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11397 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be a registered association of electrical contractors of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. It is stated that all the members of the petitioner association are registered electrical contractors of Class-I, II & III in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.94, Irrigation & Command Area Development (PW-COD) Department, dated 1.7.2003. This writ petition is filed assailing by the tender notice dated 28.5.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent – Superintending Engineer (Electrical), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation - inviting tenders for engaging Electricians for operation and maintenance of street-lighting in R.C. Puram and Patancheru Pacakage in Circle-13 in West Zone of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) for a period of one year from 1.7.2009 to 30.06.2010, primarily on the ground that the said tender notice in respect of items 1 to 36 items, is in utter violation of the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003. It is contended that the procedure relating to grant of contracts for execution of engineering works in all Departments has been codified under G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003 and therefore the respondents are bound to follow the said procedure. According to the petitioner, the impugned tender notice is illegal and liable to be set aside for the following grounds: (1) Clause-8 of Special General Terms & Conditions of the impugned Tender Notice mentions that the Instructions & Conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003 is not applicable. Since G.O.Ms.No.94 contains a comprehensive procedure for execution of the engineering works by all the Departments and it has got the statutory force, it is not open to the 2nd respondent to say that G.O.Ms.No.94 is not applicable. (2) Clause 5 of the Special General Terms & Conditions of the Impugned tender notice provides that the contractor or agency should have to quote competitive rates only for the commission as per G.O.Rt.No.2501, dated 13.07.2006. Simultaneously another condition has been imposed in Clause-10 stipulating that the deductions will be done as per G.Os. in force and FSD will be collected at the rate of 7.5% on part-bill and 2.5% on final bills. By virtue of the said clauses, restricting the commission from 0 to 5% and on the other hand proposing to deduct 7.5% towards FSD, the contractors are forced to bear extra 2.5% over and above their profit margin which will not be feasible for any contractor unless he resorts to malpractices. (3) Whereas G.O.Ms.No.94 mandates that electrical contractors of Special Class, Class-I, Class-II and Class-III are eligible to take up the works throughout the State and the contractors of Class-IV and Class-V can tender the works within the circle where registration is done, the impugned tender notice permits all those contractors with the valid registration certificate of any class (electrical/civil) from GHMC/Government of Central/State Government Undertaking of Central/State to participate. Permitting other contractors who have been operating at a smaller level with the Governmental Agencies is not in public interest apart from being contrary to G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003. (4) As per G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003 only Class-I Electrical Contractors are eligible to execute any electrical work above Rs.10 lakhs. As the value of the works under the impugned tender notice is more than Rs.10 lakhs, the contractors other than the electrical contractors of Class-I registered under G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003, ought not to have been permitted to participate. It is pleaded that the 2nd respondent had earlier issued a similar tender notice on 5.11.2007 which was contrary to the guidelines specified under G.O.Ms.No.94, dt. 1.7.2003. However, when the petitioner association raised an objection and brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent that the said notice was not in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003, the tender notice dated 5.11.2007 was cancelled and a fresh tender notice dated 20.12.2007 was issued. However the respondents failed to issue a revised notice in spite of the fact that the petitioner association submitted a detailed representation dated 3.6.2009 pointing out the mistakes in the impugned tender notice dated 28.5.2009. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned tender notice dated 28.5.2009 in violation of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003 is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is contended that G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003, relied upon by the petitioner, has no application to the impugned tender notice under which the tenders were called for engaging the electricians for operation and maintenance of street-lights which is purely a contract for supply of labour. It is further explained that the system of engaging electricians (supply of labour) by the tenderer/agency i.e., supply of manpower for maintenance of street-lights and arranging the material directly from the manufacturing companies to the field and maintenance/repairs of street-lights by the Corporation has been in existence for the last so many years and it is found that the said system is working very well. By adopting this system, the quality material will be received directly from the manufacturing company and the supply of electricians will be done by the contractor. The repairing of street lights will be done under the direct control of the Assistant Engineer, Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer of the Corporation thereby the Corporation exercises better control in the maintenance of street-lights and better service can be provided to the public. Therefore, it is proposed to call for tenders for engaging the electricians for maintenance of street-lights only through the contractor and to obtain material directly from the manufacturing companies and get the repairs done under the supervisions of the Engineers of the Corporation. Accordingly, paragraph-150 (i) of the A.P. Public Works Department Code has been invoked which deals with methods of execution of works, thereby enabling the Chief Engineer of the concerned Department to execute the work departmentally by employing labour. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. It is true that G.O.Ms.No.94, dt. 01.07.2003, provides in detail the tender procedure as well as the registration of contractors. It is also not in dispute that the said G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003 has been issued on the basis of the recommendations made by the Cabinet Sub-Committee after examining the various issues relating to revision and streamlining of tender procedures and after analyzing the deficiencies in the existing procedures in respect of registration of contractors, qualification criteria, etc. Having considered the said recommendations, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003, which is in the nature of comprehensive order, on all the issues relating to tender procedure and registration of contractors. Whereas it is contended by the petitioner that the respondents are bound to follow the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003, the contention of the respondents is that the said procedure is not applicable to the impugned tender notice since the same does not involve any material component and the tenders are invited only for supply of manpower for operation and maintenance of street- lights. At the outset, it is to be noticed that G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003, on the face of it, is only an administrative order. Nothing could be placed before this Court to show that the said Notification has any statutory force. Admittedly the said notification has not been issued in exercise of any statutory power. It is apparent that the various clauses under G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003, prescribed the procedure to be followed while preparing the estimates, finalization of SSRs, invitation of tenders, collection of EMD, finalization of tenders and etc., in order to achieve better results and greater transparency in procurement. In other words, the different clauses of the said notification are mere guidelines or administrative instructions. Since such guidelines/administrative instructions do not confer any enforceable right, even assuming that there is any deviation from the procedure prescribed, it is not open to the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the controversy whether the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003 is applicable to the impugned tender notice or not. It is also relevant to note that under G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003, no category of contractor or class of contractor is specified and the tenders have been invited from all types of contractors irrespective of the categorization. Hence, the members of the petitioner association are also eligible for participation and it is not as if they are eliminated from participation. At any rate, as expressed above, since G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003, does not confer any enforceable legal right, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief as prayed for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 06.10.2009 gbs