HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.33233 of 2010 Date : 16-8-2011 Between: Balijapalli Vaddera Labour Contract Coop. Society, represented by its President, G.Venkata Ramaiah, Kadapa. .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri N.Subba Reddy for Sri G.V. Shivaji Counsel for respondent No.1 : A.G.P. for Municipal Administration Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sashidaran Nair for Sri Palle Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri B.Venkatadri The Court made the following: ORDER: At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashidharan Nair, learned Counsel representing Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri B.Venkatadri, learned Counsel representing respondent No.3. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, respondent No.2, started outsourcing sanitation works in the year 2008. In pursuance of e-procurement notice dated 2-9-2008, tenders were filed which were finalized on 15-9-2008 in respect of Zones I and II. The petitioner has quoted 5.50% less than the estimated contract value in respect of both the Zones. Therefore, the contract was awarded to the petitioner for the period from 18-10-2008 to 31-10-2009. Subsequently, the petitioner’s period of contract was extended upto 31-10-2010. Fresh tenders were called for through e-procurement notice dated 22-12-2010 for entrustment of the sanitation works. The petitioner’s contract was further extended from 1-11-2010 to 31-3-2011 at the same rates at which the contract was originally entrusted to it. Later on, the contract was further extended till finalization of the tenders. In pursuance of the tender notification dated 22-12-2010, issued by respondent No.2, it has received certain tenders. But for reasons not forthcoming from the petitioner, it has not filed its tender. During the tender process, respondent No.2 has issued order dated 19-4- 2011 blacklisting the petitioner. The said order was questioned by the petitioner in a writ petition which was allowed on the short ground that the said order blacklisting the petitioner was not preceded by a notice. However, we are not concerned with the said proceedings in the present Writ Petition. Questioning the fresh tender notice dated 22- 12-2010, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on the main ground that instead of encouraging the petitioner which is the Vaddera Labour Contract Co-operative Society, by extending the contract on the same terms on which it was granted earlier, the respondents have called for fresh tenders. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that for the future period, the following expenditure is anticipated in respect of different areas : 1. Zone-I 92 Nos. Rs.49.80 lakhs 2. Zone-II 89 Nos. Rs.48.00 lakhs 3. Zone-III 68 Nos. Rs.36.50 lakhs 4. Zone-IV 53 Nos. Rs.28.00 lakhs It is further averred that the petitioner has no right to insist on extension of the contract and that the procedure being followed by respondent No.2, namely, to entrust the work through tender process, does not suffer from any illegality. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced two submissions, namely, that under the Circular Roc.16896/2004-G3, dated 30-11-2004, 15% of the works have to be reserved to the Labour Contract Co-operative Societies formed by S.Cs., S.Ts., and Vadderas and the said Circular is violated by not extending the contract in favour of the petitioner and that the value of the tender was bloated up under the tender notice which results in loss to the public exchequer. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 resisted the above contentions. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the respective parties. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner failed to raise a specific plea regarding the purported failure of respondent No.2 to follow the reservation to the extent of 15% of the total works. In the absence of such a specific plea, respondent No.2 is denied the opportunity of coming out with the required explanation. At any rate, while reserving 15% of the works to the Labour Contract Co-operative Societies is one thing and insistence on extension of the contract in favour of the petitioner is quite a different thing. Even if 15% of the works need to be reserved for the Labour Contract Co-operative Societies, that does not mean that the petitioner is entitled for extension of the contract work or entrustment of the work afresh without following the tender process. Unless the petitioner pleads and substantiates the same by producing material regarding failure to reserve the works, the impugned tender process cannot be invalidated. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards the submission of the learned counsel that the tender values are bloated up, as noted above, respondent No.2 has given justification for making the estimated values in the fresh tender notice taking into consideration the proposed expenditure. The petitioner who has not filed its tender cannot complain of the so-called bloating up of the tender amounts. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that it is espousing the public cause. With its failure to participate, the petitioner has lost its right to question the tender process or the conditions stipulated therein. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and hence the same is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 29-12-2010 is vacated and WPMP No.42170/2010 and WVMP No.2218/2011 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 16-8-2011 AM