IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 23607 of 2007 Between: M/s. Sree Venkateswara Storage, Represented by its Managing Partner, Mr.M.Venkat Reddy .. Petitioner AND AP State Ware Housing Corporation, {A State Govt. undertaking} Represented by its Managing Director & Anr. ..... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. URGESH for M. VIJAY KUMAR HERUR Counsel for the Respondents: MRS. R.KAMESHWARI FOR R.1 None appeared for R2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY * * * WRIT PETITION NO. 23607 OF 2008 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent no.1 in not disposing of the representation dated 26-10-2007 filed by the petitioner and in seeking to contemplate to finalise the tender by respondent no.2 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner sought for a direction to dispose of its representation dated 26-10-2007. 2. Heard Sri Ugesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.R.Kameshwari, the learned standing counsel for Respondent No.1 and perused the record. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred on behalf of the petitioner that under a scheme floated by the State Government providing for public private participation in construction of Godowns for being used as warehouse for Respondent No.1, the petitioner constructed a Godown which is called Investor’s Godown {‘1G ‘ for short}. The petitioner is imposed certain obligations to maintain the godown including the quality and shortfall of the goods stored in the godown. Under the scheme, the petitioner is being paid rent for letting out the IG and under a lease agreement the petitioner is authorised to run and maintain IG. In addition to the said agreement, the Respondent No.1 entered into a separate agreement for handling and transportation of the foodgrains. The said agreement, which was entered into on 13-12-2004 expired on 12- 12-2006. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued tenders notice dated 24-9-2007 whereby it invited sealed tender for appointment of contractors in respect of handing and transportation of the goods (“H & T” for short) stored in the IGs. The petitioner participated in the tenders and later filed representation dated 26-10-2007 to Respondent No.1 requesting it to consider its request for renewal of the agreement for, which expired on 13-12-2006. The petitioner filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the Respondent No.1 in disposing of the said representation. 4. On behalf of Respondent No.1, its Secretary filed a counter- affidavit. It is inter alia mentioned that Respondent No.1 Corporation at the behest of F.C.I., floated tenders for private investors to construct Godowns at various places identified by FCI and Jadcherla where the petitioner constructed the IG is one of the 72 centers. Individual agreements were entered into with the investors for leasing out the IGs and for carrying out H & T work and preservation and maintenance work. It is further averred that H & T work was entrusted on nomination basis due to lack of sufficient time to call for the tenders. This practice was continued in view of the FCI’s consent based on representation by the investors, that in view of the same, the investors like the petitioner who leased the godown for storing goods were entrusted with the works of H & T and P & M on nomination basis. It is further averred that after the expiry of H & T contract, the petitioner declined to carryout the said work and demanded higher rate, that as FCI refused enhanced rate and as the movement of food grains stock belonging to FCI is meant for public distribution system, Respondent No.1 called for open tenders for entrusting H & T work on 24-9-2007 for 16 IGs including the IG at Jadcherla. It is also stated that the tenders are opened on 08-10-2007 and the petitioner’s tender was found only third lowest and having realized that it may not get the work it chose to file this writ petition. It is alleged that the entire process of calling tenders H & T work was because of the refusal by the petitioner to carry on the said work at the old rates. 5. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to controvert the allegations contained in the counter-affidavit. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner failed to establish any right for the grant of relief sought for in this writ petition. Admittedly, the agreement entered into on 13-12-2004 in respect of H & T work expired on 12-12-2006. It is not the case of the petitioner that Respondent No.1 has no legal right to call for tenders. In a catena of decision, the Supreme Court held that unless the State for special reasons decides to entrust the contract work on nomination basis, it is always desirable in the public interest to invite open tenders. This would ensure transparency in the action of the State. By the mere fact that the petitioner constructed godown with its investment would not entitle it to insist that H & T work, which is independent of the agreement it has with Respondent No.1 relating to lease of its godown should also be given to it. If as a convention or practice earlier Respondent No.1 was entrusting the contract on nomination basis, the petitioner cannot insist that the same practice shall continue for all times to come. Respondent No.1, in my considered view had eventually chosen to entrust contract work by calling for tenders. The petitioner admittedly filed its tender and failed to offer lowest rates. Having thus participated in the tender and not being successful therein, the petitioner has no right to insist that its representation for award of work on nomination basis in its favour shall be considered by respondent No.1. In my considered opinion, Respondent No.1 does not have such obligation in law to consider the representation of the petitioner when once the tender process is commenced. 7. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No. 30747 of 2007 and WPMP.No.31258 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief are dismissed. JUSTICE C . V . NAGARJUNA REDDY 11/3/2008 I s L