IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 175 of 2005 Between: Nakka Muralidhara Rao, S/o. Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, R/o. Geddakancharam Village, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply (P.R.) Sub-Division, Rajam, Srikakulam District. 2 The District Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.M.PATRO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Sri B.M.Patro, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents are heard. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in processing and finalizing the tenders in respect of tender notification No.9/04-05 dated 28-12-2004 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought for setting aside of the entire tender process. The respondents issued tender notification No.9/04-05 dated 28-12-2004 calling for tenders for the work of laying of pipeline to the protected water line (drinking water line) in Geddakancharam Village, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District. The tender notification mentioned 31-12-2005 as the last date for receiving applications for supply of tender schedules and 05-01-2005 as the last date for filing of tenders. Evidently, the last date for receipt of tenders was extended till 10-01-2005. The petitioner claimed that he approached the Office of respondent No.1 on 06-01-2005 for supply of tender schedule and that the tender schedule was issued to him on the same day by mentioning 10-01-2005 as the last date for receipt of the tenders. The petitioner further alleged that he approached the Office of respondent No.1 on 09-01-2005, but he did not find any tender box to file his tender application and that he was told that since the last date of receiving tender applications was 05-01-2005, his tender application would not be received. He, therefore, filed this writ petition with the prayer mentioned above. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply, Rajam, Srikakulam District, it is, inter alia, mentioned that initially 31-12-2004 (in the counter-affidavit the year is wrongly mentioned as 2005) was fixed for receiving the applications for supply of tender schedules and the said date was extended up to 05- 01-2005, that the petitioner approached respondent No.1 on 05-01- 2005 and submitted his application along with demand draft for tender schedule, that the tender box was kept ready in the Office to enable the tenderers to file their tenders from 06-01-2005 up to 10-01-2005. The respondents denied the claim of the petitioner that he approached the Office of respondent No.1 on 09-01-2005 to file his tender schedule, which happened to be a Sunday, and that the tender box was sealed on 10-01-2005 at 3.00 p.m by Sri S.Rama Kirshna, Assistant Engineer and Sri N.Srihari, Senior Assistant, as instructed by respondent No.1, who was on leave. It is further averred that respondent No.1 issued notice on 07-01-2005 that the tender box would be closed on 10- 01-2005 at 3.00 p.m and would be opened on 20-01-2005 at 3.30 p.m. He denied the allegation of political pressures on him and asserted that there was no intention on the part of respondent No.1 to entrust the work to a Contractor belonging to the ruling party. Though the petitioner pleaded in his affidavit that he approached the Office of respondent No.1 on 09-01-2005 and did not find tender box, he has not filed any material in support of the said allegation. The petitioner signed the affidavit filed in this writ petition on 15-01-2005, which shows that there was a gap of seven days between the date on which he allegedly approached the respondents for filing tender and his filing the writ petition. If what the petitioner contends is correct, nothing would have prevented him from causing a notice issued to the respondents alleging absence of tender box. The respondents specifically denied the averment of the petitioner that tender box was not made available on 09-01-2005. In the absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner, his mere ipse dixit cannot be made the basis for this Court to accept his contention that tender box was not made available on 09-01-2005. On the basis of such a vague assertion, an important public work, sought to be entrusted through tender process, could not be stalled. The petitioner failed to make out any case for this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Before parting with the case, I am constrained to observe that it is most unfortunate that respondents have shown lethargy and negligence in not moving this Court for seeking vacation of the interim order by which, the work relating to supply of a pipeline for providing drinking water to public has been stalled. The attitude of the respondents deserves deprecation. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 19-01-2005 is vacated and WPMP No.252 of 2005 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 23rd June, 2008 vrn