IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11700 of 2008 Between: K. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. K. Venkata Reddy R/o. 46/1, Rajiv Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kakinada, rep. by its Superintendent. 2 Pilla Bala, Sri Ratna Bala Medical and General Stores, Ramalaya Street Katari Nagar, Near Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....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 of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in receiving the tender of the 2nd respondent after closing date as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the selection of the 2nd respondent pursuant to the tender notification issued in Rc.No.2474/H2/2008 dated 09.04.2008 and further direct the 1st respondent to issue fresh notification and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been filed by K.Srinivas Reddy with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 1st respondent- Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kakinada in receiving the tender of 2nd respondent-Pilla Bala after closing date as illegal and arbitrary. The writ affidavit averments, in brief, are: The petitioner is a licensee to sell stock or exhibit the medicine products having obtained the license under the provisions of Drug Rules, 1945. He possessed necessary qualifications for participating in the auction that has been notified by 1st respondent. He could not participate in the tenders due to his personal reasons. He came to know that 2nd respondent’s tender has been received after the expiry of the due date. Therefore, he filed this writ petition assailing the action of 1st respondent in receiving the tender of 2nd respondent after expiry of the due date. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 10.6.2008. It is stated in the counter affidavit of 1st respondent that 2nd respondent has purchased tender schedule on 15.5.2008 and submitted the same within the date fixed in the tender schedule. It is stated in the counter affidavit of 2nd respondent that the petitioner having not participated in the tender has no locus standi to challenge the allotment of Medical Shop No.2 at Kakinada General Hospital. It is further stated in the counter affidavit of 2nd respondent that no bidder participated in the open auction for upset price fixed by the government @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month by the Committee. He asserted that he purchased the tender schedule on 15.5.2008 and submitted the same within the schedule time. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health on behalf of 1st respondent and learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 1st respondent issued the tender schedule after the expiry of the period and therefore the offer made by 2nd respondent is liable to be rejected. I directed the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health to produce the file which deals with issuance of tender schedule in respect of the medical shop in question. Learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health made available the file for perusal. As seen from the file, 2nd respondent enclosed a demand draft for Rs.1,500/- dated 15.5.2008. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that 1st respondent accepted the tender after the expiry of specified period cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that the petitioner is not one of the tenderers and in my considered opinion, the shop which is allotted to 2nd respondent basing on the tender is not required to be disturbed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 16th July, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITON NO.11700 OF 2008 16TH JULY 2008.