IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1482 OF 2009 Dt.29.1.2010 Between: A. Sudhaker Reddy … Appellant And Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar and others … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S.R. Ashok, Senior Counsel for Sri S. Chakrapani Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri P.V.A. Padmanabham THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1482 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Appeal is filed against order dt.11.11.2009 in W.P. No.21333 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The appellant and respondent No.2 filed their respective tenders in connection with the tender notice issued by respondent No.1 for infrastructure development works for 2nd phase at JNTUH College of Engineering, Nachupally (Kondagattu), Jagtial, Karimnagar District. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 has become the lowest bidder for the said works and was accordingly entrusted with the said work. During the tender process, the appellant made a representation to respondent No.1 to disqualify respondent No.2 from the tender process on the ground that it, in collusion with its Managing Director, has indulged in fraudulent practice in connection with the work pertaining to A.P.S.W. Residential School building at Nagarigutta of Pulivendula in Kadapa District. According to the appellant, the Managing Director of respondent No.2 without disclosing the fact that he has transferred all his experience in favour of respondent No.2 submitted his tender in respect of the said work and has obtained the contract from respondent No.3 and that respondent No.2 being the beneficiary of the said fraudulent practice committed by its Managing Director, the company should be disqualified from participating in the tender process initiated by respondent No.1. As the contract was awarded to respondent No.2 notwithstanding the said representation of the appellant, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.21333 of 2009. The learned Single Judge, after considering the pleadings of the respective parties and hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, dismissed the Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, placed strong reliance on condition 31.1(a)(ii) of the tender conditions and submitted that the said clause has a wider import and that as the Managing Director of respondent No.2 has applied for the tender and got the work awarded in his favour in connection with another contract referred to above, respondent No.1 is bound to take appropriate action to blacklist or debar respondent No.2 firm in terms of conditions 31.1(a)(ii) and also 31.1(c) of the tender conditions. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned Senior Counsel and we find no merit in the same. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is not alleged to have committed any fraudulent practice in respect of the work entrusted by respondent No.1. We are not prepared to read condition 31 of the tender conditions as to comprehend the corrupt or fraudulent practice said to have been committed by the tenderers in connection with the contracts, which are not related to the contracts entrusted by respondent No.1. Though the expression “government” is mentioned in condition 31.1 of the tender conditions, the said expression has to be understood as being used for Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. In our view, respondent No.1 appeared to have bodily lifted certain conditions from the standard conditions used in government contracts. A proper reading of condition 31 would only indicate that action by respondent No.1 for blacklisting or debarring a company/firm on the ground of corrupt or fraudulent practices would arise only in a case where such corrupt or fraudulent practices are committed in a contract entrusted by respondent No.1. To read condition 31 otherwise, would amount to entrusting the power of taking action to respondent No.1 against the contractors in relation to contracts with which respondent No.1 is not concerned at all. Viewed from this angle, the relief claimed by the appellant in the Writ Petition, namely, to direct respondent No.1 to initiate action against respondent No.2 in connection with alleged fraudulent practice committed by its Managing Director in respect of a work not concerned with respondent No.1, cannot be granted. Moreover, as evident from the letter dt.16.9.2009, the Engineer-in-Chief examined the complaint against respondent Nos.2 and 3, forwarded by the appellant and opined that the issue appears to be trivial in nature as the reason for awarding contract in favour of the Managing Director of respondent No.2 appeared to be non-transfer of digital key pertaining to the Managing Director’s experience in favour of respondent No.2 company. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.3091 of 2009, filed by the appellant/petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29.1.2010 bnr