IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8981 of 2008 Between: P.Ramanaiah S/o.Venkata Swamy Sree Tirumalesa Security And Sanitation Services R/o.D.No.20-1- 470/H/A-8 Navodaya colony, Near Subbareddy Nagar Tirupathi City, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to General Administration (Services) Department Secretariat, Saifabad, hyderabad 2 Superintendent Sri Venkateswara Ramanarayana (Ruya) Government Hospital, Tirupathi City, Chittoor District 3 The Executive officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Tirupathi, Chittoor District 4 District Out Sourcing Selection Committee,rep.by its Chairman cum District Collector, Chittoor District at Chittoor 5 B.Rajendra Prasad Sarma S/o.Not known Door No.20-5-161, Sanjaygandhi colony Tirupathi, Chittoor 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting the petitioner to stop sanitation work in the premises of 2nd respondent and granting the same in favour of the 5th respondent as illegal, irregular arbitrary, without jurisdiction violative of principles of natural justice G.Rt.4459 Finance (SMPC) Department dated 27.12.2006 and offends articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently directthe respondents to continue the petitioner to supply manpower to the sanitation work in the premises of 2nd respondent and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8981 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by P.Ramanaiah with a prayer to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Superintendent Sri Venkateswara Ramanarayana Government Hospital, Tirupathi City-2nd Respondent in insisting the petitioner to stop sanitation work in Hospital premises and awarding the sanitation work to B.Rajendra Prasad Sarma-5th Respondent as illegal, irregular and violative of the guidelines issued in G.O.Rt.No. 4459 Finance (SMPC) Department, dated 27-12-2006. 2. The 2nd Respondent has been availing the manpower provided by the petitioner to attend sanitation work since the year 2006 for a lump sum of Rs.20,99,999/-. The 2nd Respondent issued tender notification as published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper of Chittoor District inviting tenders from the labour contractors and agencies for attending sanitation work and removal of garbage. The 2nd Respondent finalized tenders and awarded sanitation work to the 5th Respondent who is a private contractor. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the finalization of the tenders is not in accordance with the guidelines issued in G.O.Rt.No. 4459, dated 27-12-2006. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I may refer the para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition and it is thus: “I further humbly submit that I rushed over to respondents 3 and 4 and requested to see that the process of selecting out sourcing agencies might be undertaken in terms of G.O.Rt.No. 4459, dated 27- 12-2006. They did not listen to my request. The entire selection process of contract by the 2nd Respondent for supply of manpower is without jurisdiction. The 4th respondent is only competent authority. No process was undertaken by the 4th respondent in the selection of the 5th respondent. In fact, the 2nd respondent invited certain clarification invited certain clarification from the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupathi regarding requirement of manpower and eligibility of the tenders by a letter, dated 14-9-2007. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupathi clarified by a letter Dt. 17-9-2007 to the effect that 125 contract labour workmen could attend the sanitation work. The said authority further opined that the tender might be cancelled and retender be issued, since the cited tenders had shown inadequate number of workmen. Inspite of such clarification the 2nd respondent finalized the tender of the 5th respondent, though his tender does not meet the requirements of work”. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Medical and health received notice on behalf of Respondent No.2 and filed counter. One Dr. M.B.R. Sarma has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that finalization of tenders came to be approved by the District Collector. Paras 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit are to be noted and they are:- “6. The individual has been given enough opportunity in giving information regarding termination of contract and the allegation of the petitioner that oral ultimatum was given in false. Moreover as per the G.O. District Selection Committee is the competent authority for finalization of outsourcing agencies at District level and finalization of the agency required for the services needed by the user are with the user only. Moreover, the contractor selected was in the list approved by the District selection committee vide letter No. A2/10/2008, dated 28-1-2008. 7. As stated supra the entire selection process of contract was conducted transparently by this office duly formulating committee in the absence of District Selection Committee as per G.O.Rt. No. 4459, dated 27-12-2006 and also the Chairman, District Selection Committee, Chittoor in his letter dated 24- 3-2008 has stated that the decision as taken by the committee holds good”. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader of Medical and Health appearing for Respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the finalisation of tenders is not in accordance with the guidelines issued in G.O.Rt.No.4459 dated 27-12-2006 and as such, the tender settled in favour of 5th Respondent is required to be set aside. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for the 2nd Respondent submits that the tender came to be approved by the District Collector and therefore, there is no violation of the guidelines issued in G.O.Rt.No.4459 , dated 27-12-2006. A further submission has been made that the petitioner is not one of the tenders and therefore, he cannot questioned the tender settled in favour of the 5th Respondent. 8. A fact remains that the petitioner has not participated in the tenders. The work entrusted to him came to be terminated by 19-4-2008. If he intends to take up the work, he would have participate in the tenders. Having not participated in the tenders, he cannot be permitted to contend that the work has been entrusted to the 5th respondent in violations of guidelines issued in G.O.Rt. No. 4459, dated 27-12-2006. Even otherwise, the District Collector, approved the finalization of tender in favour of 5th respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allotment of work in favour of 5th respondent is not in contravention of guidelines issued in G.O.Rt.No. 4459, dated 27-12-2006. 9. In the result the writ petition is devoid of merits, and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 21st July, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8981 OF 2008 21st July, 2008.