IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.547 of 2008 Between: K.Kondal Rao.. … Petitioner AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Reptd., by Commissioner & Special Officer and 2 others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri O.Manohar Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, Standing counsel for GHMC. THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.547 OF 2008 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the tender schedule of the petitioner for the works notified, vide tender notification dated 27-11-2007 issued by the Zonal Commissioner, Norh Zone, Qutubullahpur Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (respondent No.2) as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the tender of the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 issued a tender notification inviting tenders for execution of various sweeping works in the Corporation area. In response to the said tender notification, the petitioner filed his tender, which was rejected, and questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is averred that the prime documents, viz., duly attested PAN card and two identity proofs duly attested, were not enclosed to the application submitted by the petitioner. It is also averred that against the space provided for writing the Income Tax Permanent Account Number, the petitioner wrote the Provident Fund Number. At the hearing, Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, produced the original application of the petitioner along with enclosures. Apart from the Court perusing the same, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, was allowed to look into the papers. He fairly admitted that the tender application along with annexures filed by the petitioner do not include a copy of the PAN Card. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that PAN Card is an essential document required to have been produced by the petitioner. In view of non- production of such an essential document, the petitioner’s tender was rejected. I do not see any reason to interfere with the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s tender. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted on 18-1-2008 in WPMP No.617 of 2008 is vacated. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 15-2-2008 MNR