IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2294 of 2009 Between: Sree Rama Constructions, 3-10-20/9/3/1, Gokhalenagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-13, Re. by Sri B. Govardhan Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissionerate of Tenders, Rep. by the Commissioner, at 6th Floor, B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Balasoudha Building, 3rd Floor, Erramanjil, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, I & CAD, Irrigation Circle, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 4 Sri Laxmi Engineering Company, H.No. 305/A, Myhome hills, View Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Ramana Rao. .....RESPONDENTS 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 or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent, Superintending Engineer, in opening the price bid of the 4th respondent as illegal and arbitrary, consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and award the work in favour of this petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2294 of 2009 ORDER: The only ground on which the petitioner challenges the action of respondents 1 to 3 in opening the price bid of the fourth respondent is that the latter did not have valid registration as Class- I Contractor beyond 11.11.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. The tender notice was issued on 06.10.2008 and the technical bids were opened on 07.11.2008. By that time, the fourth respondent held valid registration. Opening of price bids on 17.11.2008 disclosed that the fourth respondent has emerged as L-I tender with 7.86% and the petitioner as L-II with 7.11% less. It is a matter of record that the fourth respondent filed an application for renewal much before expiry. Even assuming that there was any uncertainty as to the registration as on the date of opening the price bid, it has now emerged that the registration of the fourth respondent as Class-I Contractor has since been renewed. With that, the technical objection raised by the petitioner virtually becomes redundant. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J Dt.15.04.2009 VGB