THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2895 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a Civil Contractor. The Director of Archeology and Museums, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein, issued a tender notice dated 04-11-2008 through e-procurement, for the work of removal of accumulated debris around the structures, water tightening over the roof, and laying pipeline for supply of drinking water, and other works at Kondapalli Hill Fort, Krishna District. The petitioner, 4th respondent and certain others submitted their tenders. The 2nd respondent accepted the tender submitted by the 4th respondent. The petitioner challenges the action of the 2nd respondent in accepting the tender of the 4th respondent, on the ground that the latter does not have the experience in execution of “similar works”. Reliance is placed upon general terms and conditions of the tender notice. Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Tourism, and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The process for awarding the contract for the works referred to above, involves two stages, viz., technical bid and financial bid. Even from the averments in the affidavit, it is evident that the petitioner was qualified at the technical bid stage, on 10-12-2008. The 4th respondent, on the other hand, was qualified at the technical bid stage, and his price bid was accepted. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in disqualifying him at the technical bid stage, he ought to have approached this Court in the right earnest. However, he has chosen to file a writ petition at a belated stage. Be that as it may, the only ground urged by the petitioner is, that the 4th respondent does not possess the requisite experience. In support of his contention, the petitioner filed a statement, showing the details of experience, and certificates submitted by the 4th respondent. The petitioner contends that the works mentioned therein are not similar to the one, for which the tenders have been submitted. This Court cannot undertake any evaluation in this regard. It is for the 2nd respondent to satisfy itself, as to whether the tenderers have the requisite experience. At any rate, the mere disqualification of the 4th respondent on the ground that he does not possess the experience in “similar works”, would not, in any way, help the petitioner, as long as the disqualification meted out to him remains unchallenged. Above all, the work was not only allotted to the 4th respondent, but also a substantial work, 40% is said to have been completed. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.30-03-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO