HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.75 of 2010 Date: 8th February 2010 Between : M/s.Pakala Harijana Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited, Pakala village, Prakasam District, rep. by its President. …….Petitioner And The District Coordinator of Hospital Services, Karimnagar & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.75 of 2010 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.2 in deciding to issue sanitation contract in favour of respondent No.4 in pursuance of tender notice, dated 04.11.2009, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The 2nd respondent-Medical Officer/Member Convenor of Mother and Child hospital, Ongole, has issued tender notice for award of sanitation contract, by their notification published in newspapers on 04.11.2009. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he has offered to provide the sanitation services by charging Rs.18,500/- per month, whereas, the 4th respondent has charged Rs.24,000/-. In this writ petition, it is submitted that though the petitioner is the highest bidder, inspite of the same, he was not awarded the contract but the same is illegally awarded to respondent No.4. 3. Separate counter affidavits are filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is categorically denied that the petitioner has fulfilled the conditions prescribed in the tender notice. It is stated that as per the tender notice, the applicant shall possess license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, but the petitioner was not having any such license as on the date of tender notification i.e. 03.11.2009. A reference is also made to a Minimum Wages Case No.43 of 2008, filed by the Labour Officer, Guntur, against the petitioner-Society for non-payment of statutory wages to its employees. 4. From the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is clear that the petitioner has failed to file valid license as provided under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which is required to be produced as per the tender conditions. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner is not qualified to tender for not possessing valid license as on the date of notification i.e. 03.11.2009, merely on the ground that he has quoted lesser rates than that of the 4th respondent, he cannot seek for award of contract in his favour. For the reasons mentioned in the counter affidavit, I do not find any illegality in awarding contract in favour of respondent No.4. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th February 2010 ajr