IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11157 of 2008 Between: 1 Kranthi Jyothi Sanitation Workers welfare Society, Regd No. 212/05, rep. by its President Yandrapati Jaya Rao S/o. Neelambaram R/o. D.No. 16-33-46, Balaji Nagar, Old Guntur. 2 Nagara Safayi Karmachar's Sankshe Sangam, Regd. No. 242/05, Rep. by its President Shiram Shetty Venkat Rao, S/o. Satyam, R/o. D.No. 18-2-2, Syedkhan Street, China Bazar, Guntur. 3 Krupa Municipal Private Sanitary Workers Welfare Society, Regd. No. 694/05, Guntur, Rep. by its Secretary Nageswari W/o. Samuel , R/o. D.No. 8-14-76, Venkatadri pet, Guntur. 4 Keerthana SC-ST PArisudya Karmika Sankshema Sangam Regd. No. 705/05, Guntur, rep.by its President K.Yesamma W/o. Samuel, R/o. D.No. 8-14-77, Venkatadripet, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of A.P., Rep. by its Principle Secretary Municipal Administration & UrbanDevelopment ( G-II ), Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Director of Minisipal Administration, Hyderabad 3 The Guntur Minicipal Corporation at Guntur, Rep. by its Commissioner. 4 Siddarthe Jain, IAS, S/o. Rakesh Fouzer Commissioner Municipal Corporation Guntur, Guntur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declare the Tender Notice issued by the 3rd respondent wide his proceedings ROC No. 322/2008 F2, Dated 28-04-2008 as published in the Local News Paper dated 1st May 2008, as illegal arbitrary and violative of the relevant rules and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.ASHOK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. WRIT PETITION NO : 11160 of 2008 Between: 1 Durgabai Parisudhya mahila Podupu Sangam(Regd.No.243/04) rep.by its Secretary, Antharaju Ankamma, W/o.vasu R/o.H.No.17-16-14, 2nd Lane, Anandpet, Guntur 2 Jhansi Stree Sangam, rep.by its Secretary, P.Lakshmi .W/o.Ankaiah Sudhapally Donka, Yanadipally Old Guntur Guntur 3 Beulah DWCUA mahila Podupu Sangam, Regd.No.381/2004 rep.by its President Galimuti Emelyamma, W/o.Esudaya R/o.D.No.8-13-91, Weavers colony, Nehru Nagar Guntur 4 Green Tops Mahila DWCUA Podupu Sangam (Regd.,No. 37/2005) rep.by its Secretary Reddiboina Durga, W/o.Esobu R/o.H.No.12-11-284, Ramireddy thota Guntur ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principle Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G-II) Secretariat Building, Saifabad,Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administation Hyderabad 3 The Guntur Municipal Corporation at Guntur, rep.by its Commissioner 4 Siddartha Jain, IAS, S/o.Rakesh Fouzer Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Guntur .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus and declare the Tender Notice issued by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings Roc.No.322/2008 F2 dated 28.4.2008 as published in the Local News paper dated 1st May 2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the relevant rules and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.ASHOK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS.11157 AND 11160 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus and declare the tender notices ET.NO.7/2008- 2009/DB(ROC.NO.322/2008 F2) and ET.NO.8/2008-2009/DB (ROC.NO.322/2008 F2) issued by the 3rd respondent dated 28.4.2008 as published in the local newspapers dated 1.5.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of relevant rules. More precisely W.P.No.11157 of 2008 is filed questioning the tender notice issued in respect of 43 sanitary works and whereas W.P.No.11160 of 2008 is filed questioning the tender notice issued in respect of 10 sanitary works. 2. These writ petitions were heard at length with the consent of both the parties and are being disposed of by this common order as the back ground facts and questions for consideration are similar. 3. The petitioners in these two writ petitions are engaged in taking up sanitary works. The Guntur Municipal Corporation issued a tender notification for sanitary works by division wise. The Societies of the Retired Sanitary Workers of the Corporation, and their children and the experienced SC and STs and Badili workers having experience in sanitation work are only eligible to participate in tenders in respect of works notified in tender notices in ET.NO.7/2008-2009/DB (ROC.NO.322/2008 F2). Whereas DWCUA (women groups) within the Municipal Corporation of Guntur are eligible for participation in respect of works notified in ET.NO.8/2008-2009/DB (ROC.NO.322/2008 F2) issued by the 3rd respondent dated 28.4.2008. The tender notifications dated 28.4.2008 came to be published in Prajashakthi and Surya daily newspapers. The validity of tender notifications is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it is contrary to the Government orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 18.1.2000 as well as circular issued by the Commissioner, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad (2nd respondent herein) dated 4.6.2004 for the purpose of improving the efficiency in sanitation work and that issuance of notification in selective local newspapers of District editions giving only 15 days time for submitting tenders. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to refer paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the writ affidavit in W.P.No.11157 of 2008 and it is thus: “ 3. It is submitted that the impugned notification is contrary to Government orders issued in GO.Ms.No.30, dated 18.1.2000 and as well the circulars issued by the 2nd respondent dated 4.6.2004 for the purpose of improving the efficiency in the sanitation work. The 3rd respondent is a controversy monger and never bother to follow the law and the rules framed for efficiently handling the invitations and disposal of Tenders for Municipal Works etc. The 3rd respondent proclaims that he is following the MCH Tender Rules, 1970 in the instant Tender process, he might be following the procedural aspect of Calling of Tenders but not in regard to substantial disposal of the Tenders. He is following the rules by pick and chose method. And the 3rd respondent is following the rules which suits his choice the Commissioner violated Rule 4 of MCH Tender Rules, 1970…” 4. In the instant case the impugned Tender Notification was issued on 1st May, 2008 in selective local newspapers that to in District editions giving only 15 days time for submitting the tenders which will be opened on the same day at 3.00 p.m. The date of Tender Notice is 28.4.2008 which was published on 1.5.2008 in the Local Newspapers the last date of receipt of Tender schedules as 15.5.2008 hence the impugned notification is illegal, contrary to rules which requires publication of the Tender Notice in important local newspapers having wide circulation atleast in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Rule 4(1) also mandates that the last date of receipt of Tenders should be atleast 1 month after the date of 1st advertisement or notice. In the impugned notification only 15 days time is given which is one (1) violation and the other one is which was published only in the District edition, which is confined only to Guntur District. The impugned Tender Notice called for tenders for 10 works worth more than Rs.30 lakhs. As such the rule 4(1) is applicable and should be strictly follows.” 4. 3rd and 4th respondents filed counter affidavit. One Siddarth Jain, I.A.S, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Guntur has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that as per G.O.Ms.No.94 I & CAD (PW) Department dated 1.7.2003 the time for publication of tender notice for first call is 14 days. The impugned tender notifications were issued on 1.5.2008 calling for tender schedules for taking up sanitation works in about 32 packages each worth more than Rs.3.00 lakhs. Each work is an individual package and therefore Rule 3(A)(1) of M.C.H. Tender Rules, 1970 (for short Tender Rules) does not apply. Rule 11(2) of Rules has been strictly followed. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that 178 workers in 11 packages out of 1060 are set apart for entrustment to societies, which is arrived at 16.79% by computation and that 27 works in two packages are set apart for entrustment to DWCUA (women group). Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit need to be noted and they are thus: “ 11. In reply to para 7 that the above rules do not apply to the tender notification published, as the individual packages or societies are called for entrustment of sanitation work each cost more than 3 lakhs. The 3rd respondent has followed rule 11(2) of M.C.H.Tender Rules, 1970 stating that at least 15 % of works in the municipal corporation shall be reserved for entrustment to the societies consisting of members of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes and the labour cooperative societies formed of ‘Wadderas’ and the individuals who happen to be unemployed and retrenched engineers belonging to the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and waddera communities. Pursuant to the above provision, 178 workers in 11 packages, out of 1060 are set apart for the entrustment to the societies and individual mentioned supra, which is arrived @ 16.79% by computation.” 5. Heard Sri.K.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that tender notifications are in violation of the Tender Rules. He further submits that publication of tender notifications in two daily newspapers viz., Prajasakthi and Surya does not amount to substantial compliance of Rule 4 of the Rules. He would also submit that the tenders are invalid since they are not preceded by the approval of Standing Committee. In elaborating his arguments he contends that minimum one month time is required for submitting tenders and since the tenders called for indicate of 15 days time, the same is contrary to Rule 4 of the Tender Rules. 7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development submits that publication of tender notifications in Prajashakthi and Surya daily newspapers amounts to substantial compliance of Rule 4 of the Tender Rules. He further submits that one- month time stipulated under rule 4(1) of the Tender Rules applies to large contracts. 8. The issue that calls for adjudication in this writ is – whether the tender notifications published in Prajashakthi and Surya are in conformity with the Tender Rules or not? 9. For better appreciation I may refer Rule 4(1) of the Tender Rules, which reads as under: “ 4 (1) Tenders in sealed covers shall be invited in the most open and public manner possible. Notice calling for tenders shall invariably be published in important local newspapers having wide circulation at least in the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of all works. In case of large contracts, the last date of receipt of tender should be at least one month after the date of first advertisement or notice. The paper for publication has to be made in respect of works whose costs exceed rupees one lakh as per note of item IV of para 154 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Works Department Code.” 10. What is provided in the above referred provision is notice calling for tenders shall invariably be published in important local newspapers having wide circulation at least in the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of all works. Indisputably Prajashakthi and Surya are daily newspapers. Publication of tenders in the district edition of Prajashakthi and Surya which are daily newspapers can definitely be said to be in substantial compliance of Rule 4(1) of Tender Rules. With regard to stipulation of time for receiving tenders, one-month time is prescribed under Rule 4(1) of the Tender Rules in case of large contracts. Indisputably the tenders published in the above two newspapers are not in respect of large contracts. The 3rd respondent has specifically stated in his counter affidavit that as per G.O.Ms.No.94 I & CAD (PW) Department dated 1.7.2003 the time for publication of tender notice for first call is 14 days. Therefore, the time stipulated in the impugned tender notices is in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.94 I & CAD (PW) Department dated 1.7.2003. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 15 % of the works are required to be set apart as per Rule 11 of Tender Rules. 3rd respondent has clarified this aspect in his counter affidavit that required works for entrustment to the Societies and DWCUA groups on nomination basis as provided under 11(2) of the Tender Rules have been set apart. It is also to be noted that tenders have been called for the works detailed in the impugned tender notification from the Societies of the Retired Sanitary Workers of the Corporation and their children and the experienced SC and STs and Badili Workers and DWCUA (women groups). 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the tenders have not been approved by the Standing Committee as provided under Section 124-A of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and therefore, the tenders in question have to be declared as invalid. Section 124-A of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act deals with the power of the Commissioner to govern the tenders on behalf of the Corporation. Section 124-A reads that it shall be competent for the Standing Committee to sanction work contracts involving an expenditure exceeding Rs.20.00 lakhs, but not exceeding Rs.50.00 lakhs. I have gone through the tender. The tenders have been called for in respect of 43 packages. The worth of each package is indicated which is between Rs.3.00 to Rs.5.00 lakhs. A Society can apply for one work only vide condition No.3 of tender conditions. Such is the situation, the provision referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is of no help to the petitioners. 13. In view of the above, I hold that the impugned tender notifications in these writ petitions are in accordance with the Tender Rules. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. 13th June 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS.11157 AND 11160 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: POSTED IN WEB. 13th June 2008. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies