HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 7630 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri T.Venkat Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and, at their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner submits that, pursuant to a tender notification issued in June, 2009 inviting sealed tenders from outsourcing consultancy agencies for supply of manpower for “Security Guards” and “House Keeping”, in all the zones of the respondent- Corporation in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, he had submitted his bid and, on his bid being found to be the lowest, he was declared as the successful bidder and was awarded the work, vide proceedings dated 01.07.2009, in respect of providing “Security Guards” and “House Keeping” in all the zones including Urban Forest Security and Horticulture House Keeping. The period of work was for 12 months i.e. from 01.07.2009 till 30.06.2010. While matters stood thus, the respondent-Corporation issued tender notification dated 29.03.2010 inviting applications from outsourcing consultancy agencies for supply of manpower for services of “Security Guards, House Keeping, I.T. Services and Engineering Services”. The petitioner would contend that, without even terminating his contract, the action of the respondents in issuing a fresh tender notification was arbitrary and illegal. Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, on instructions, would submit that the respondent-Corporation does not intend to terminate the work allotted and that the petitioner would be permitted to execute the work till 30.06.2010 in accordance with the allotment order issued earlier on 01.07.2009. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the tender notification now issued was to scrutinize bids, select the most competitive bid and allot the work on expiry of the existing work order which, in the case of the petitioner, is on 30.06.2010. In view of this submission made, on instructions, by the Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner of his being denied the opportunity of executing the work till 30.06.2010 is not well founded. The cause in the writ petition does not, therefore, necessitate adjudication and it would suffice to record the submission of the Learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner is being permitted to continue to execute the work in question till 30.06.2010. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:07.04.2010 Usd