IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.8219 of 2004 Between: N.Jaya Prakash. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District and another. .....RESPONDENTS O R D E R : In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of Proceedings, dated 08-03-2004, issued by the Superintending Engineer, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, cancelling the work order issued in his favour duly forfeiting his deposits and debarring him for a period of three years for his default in execution of the work. The brief facts of the case are as under: The second respondent issued tender notification on 28-07-2003 inviting bids for construction of developmental outfall drain from Pipula Road Junction to A.V.S.Reddy Road along Nunna Road within the limits of the first respondent-Municipal Corporation. Tenders were opened on 08-09-2003, but, there was some delay in finalizing the tenders and ultimately, they were finalized on 9th January, 2004. The petitioner was issued work order on 17th January, 2004 with a condition to start the work immediately and complete the same before 16th July, 2004. As the petitioner has not commenced the work, notice, dated 29-01-2004, was issued to him. Even after such notice, when the petitioner failed to commence the work, final notice, dated 04-02-2004, was issued directing him to conclude the contract within seven days from the date of receipt thereof, failing which, the contract will be terminated duly forfeiting his deposits and necessary action will be initiated in exercise of powers under Clause 60 (a) of Preliminary Specifications to Andhra Pradesh Detailed Standard Specifications (APDSS), which governs the terms of contract. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted a representation on 23-02-2004, stating that the sand quarry in Krishna river has been closed and seeking permission to use quarry dust in the place of sand. He further stated therein that he had started the work on 23rd February, 2004, but when it was found that no steps were taken by him for starting the work even after giving the permission as sought, the impugned proceedings were issued by the respondents. It is argued by Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that as per Rule 11 of the Hyderabad Tender Rules, 1970, framed, vide G.O.Ms.No.451, Municipal Administration, dated 6th June, 1970, under Section 585 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, which is applicable to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, there shall be no avoidable delay in disposal of tenders after they are received. The learned Counsel further argued that inasmuch as there was delay on the part of the respondents-authorities in finalizing the tenders, the impugned order forfeiting the petitioner’s deposits, canceling his work order and debarring him for three years could not have been passed. With reference to the above submission, it is to be noted that after finalisation of the tenders, the work order issued by the respondents was accepted by the petitioner without any protest. Further, it is to be noticed that after receipt of the work order, the petitioner made a representation seeking permission to use quarry dust in the place of sand. In spite of granting such permission, the petitioner has not commenced the work. As such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondents forfeiting the petitioner’s deposits and canceling his work order apart from debarring him for a period of three years. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 26th August, 2009 lur