THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.27985 of 2008 DATED: 06.08.2009 BETWEEN: M/s.Padma Enterprises, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri K.Madhusudhan Reddy. .. Petitioner And The Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.27985 of 2008 ORDER: The deponent, claiming to be the Proprietor of the petitioner firm, asserts that pursuant to the tender notice dated 18.10.2008 issued by the respondent authorities inviting interested agencies like individual contractors and firms, for short listing of agencies having minimum experience of five years for providing House Keeping service at BPPA Areas, Hyderabad, on contract basis for a period of three years from the date of commencement of work, he responded to the same by submitting the sealed tender of the petitioner firm fulfilling all formalities as demanded by the respondents. His grievance is that though he submitted the tender of the petitioner firm complying all formalities and requirements for consideration, respondent No.2 issued letter, dated 04.12.2008, rejecting the tender of the petitioner without disclosing any specific reasons for such rejection. Hence, this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 stating that as per the terms and conditions laid down in the brochure for short listing the agencies, preference will be given to the applicants enclosing copies of work orders/agreements showing minimum three currently operational contracts of similar nature in Government department/public sector undertaking/MNC with a minimum volume of work worth of Rs.3.00 lakhs per month, apart from possessing other qualifications stated in the said terms and conditions. It is also stated that out of eight tenderers participated in the impugned tender process, four tenderers, including the petitioner firm, were declared unqualified as they submitted insufficient data. It is stated that since the petitioner firm has only two currently operational contracts, instead of three currently operational contracts, the tender of the petitioner firm was rejected. Today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 has produced before this Court certain certificates issued by different Organisations to the petitioner, whereunder certain job works contracts are given to the petitioner. On a careful consideration of the said certificates, it is clear that out of four work orders entrusted to the petitioner, the contract period of two work orders have already been expired. Further, a perusal of the correspondence of different Organizations with the petitioner firm in connection with the works orders issued in favour of the petitioner, which find place in the material papers filed along with the writ petition, would show that out of three work orders assigned earlier to the petitioner through letters dated 28.02.2007 and 29.08.2009 addressed by the Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited and the Bharat Dynamics Limited respectively and the proceedings dated 31.03.2007 of the Municipal Commissioner Office, Gaddinnaram Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, the contract period of the work order assigned to the petitioner by proceedings dated 31.03.2007 has already been expired by the date of submission of the tender by the petitioner. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that though the tender of the petitioner was submitted fulfilling all the formalities, the respondent rejected the same without any cogent reasons cannot be accepted, and I find no reasons to interfere with the action of the respondents in rejecting the tender of the petitioner and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 06.08.2009 v v