IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19843 of 2004 Between: P. Anna Rao, S/o. P. Rama Rao, H.No.41-23/4-22, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Youth Advancement Tourism & Culture, (PMU) Dept., Secretairat, Hyderabad. 2 Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada at Vijayawada, Krishna District, rep. by its Commissioner. .....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 any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not implementing the G.O.Ms. No.168, Yough Advancement Tourism & Culture (PMU) Department Dt. 5.12.2003 issued by the 1st respondent and also issuing tender notification RCH.1- 43573/04 dt. 25.10.2004 published in Eenadu daily on 26.10.2004 as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the 2nd respondent to implement the said G.O. forthwith by withdrawing the said tender notification. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. R.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.19843 of 2004 ORDER The Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada issued a tender notification dated.12-07-2003 inviting tenders for establishing amusement and entertainment facilities and canteen in various parks situated in Vijayawada for a period of three(3) years. Subsequently, an amendment was issued to the notification by increasing the period of lease from three (3) years to eleven (11) years. The petitioner having participated in the tender process was declared as the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.23.30 lakhs per year. The petitioner also deposited the EMD of Rs.2.75 lakhs. It is claimed that though the proposal sent for awarding contract in favour of the petitioner was approved by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.168 dated.05-12-2003, the Corporation failed to award the contract in favour of the petitioner. On the other hand a fresh notification dated.25-10-2004 was published by the Corporation inviting tenders for grant of lease for certain amusement and entertainment activities in Rajiv Gandhi park for a period of one(1) year. Aggrieved by the said action of the Corporation this writ petition is filed. This Court while directing rule nisi, by order dated.29.10.2004 stayed finalization of the tenders pursuant to the notification dated.25-10- 2004 and the said order continued to be in operation all through. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation while bringing to the notice of this Court that the term of the lease under the notification dated.25-10-2004 was only one year, submitted that since the said period expired long back and the tenders were not finalized by virtue of the interim stay granted by this Court, nothing survives for adjudication on merits. However the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of G.O.Ms.No.168 dated.05-12-2003 under which the proposal for awarding the project in favour of the petitioner was approved, the Corporation is bound to implement the same and the petitioner should be allowed to establish the amusement and entertainment project. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, it is stated that G.O.Ms.No.168 dated.05-12-2003 relates to the approval required by the Government for the proposal of tourism project where the project cost exceeded Rs.one Crore. Accordingly the District Tourism Promotion Council placed the proposals before the Government and the same were approved by G.O.Ms.No.168 dated.05-12-2003. However as per Sec.148(3) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955 ( for short the Act) as made applicable to the Vijayawada Municpal Corporation the Commissioner shall not lease, sell or otherwise dispose of any movable or immovable property belonging to the Corporation without previous sanction of the Corporation and of the Government where the lease period is more than three years. Accordingly the Commissioner of the Corporation addressed the Government under Section.148(3) of the Act and the approval is still awaited. Since the matter is pending for a long time it has been decided by the Corporation to refund the EMD of the petitioner and other successful bidders of other parts of similar projects. Accordingly so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, the EMD of Rs.2.75 laks was returned vide cheque No.0202958 dated.25-10-2004. On a careful consideration of the rival claims of the parties and the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to issue a Mandamus compelling the Corporation to implement G.O.Ms.No.168 dated.05-12-2003. As could be seen, G.O.Ms.No.168 dated.05-12-2003 is nothing but an approval by the Government (Tourism Department) approving the project proposed by the District Tourism Promotion Council. The said approval under G.O.Ms.No.168 does not override the statutory requirement under Section.148(3) of the Act. Since the sanction of the Corporation and of the Government as required under Section.148(3) of the Act has not been granted, the mere fact that the petitioner is the successful bidder pursuant to the tender notification dated12.07.2003 does not confer any right on the petitioner for awarding the work in question in his favour. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 24th FEBRUARY 2009 *TSNR