IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9195 of 2009 Between: Sri Sai Mahila Harijana Labour Contract Co-op. Society Ltd. Reptd. by its President, Smt. D. Rajya Lakshmi, W/o. Kotaiah R/o. Oguru Village, Kandukuru Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Principle Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development (N2) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner Kandukuru Municipality Kandukuru, Prakasam District. 3 Sri Bursu Mala Kondaiah S/o. Ankaiah The Chair Person Kandukuru Municipality, Kandukuru, Prakasam District. 4 Vaddera Labour Contract Co-operative Society Ltd. Rep. by its president, Sri Thanneeru Srinivasa Rao R/o. Pokuru Village, V.V. Palem Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the 2nd respondent issuing work order in favour of the 4th respondent society at the behest of the 3rd respondent vide impugned proceeding No. ROC No. 130/02/F1, dt. 31-03-2009 as illeg;al, arbitrary and biased and also in violation of the tender conditions and also in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.UNNAM.MURALIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.9195 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is a Labour Contract Co-operative Society. Pursuant to the tender notice dated 23.03.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent-Kandukuru Municipality inviting sealed tenders for supply of 100 workmen on contract basis for execution of private sanitation in Kandukuru Municipality for a period of six months, the petitioner-society submitted its tender. Similarly, the 4th respondent-society had also filed its bid. The tenders were opened on 31.03.2009 and immediately thereafter, by order dated 31.03.2009 the work order was issued in favour of the 4th respondent-society. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the work order dated 31.03.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent-society is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the tender conditions. It is contended by the petitioner that the tender quoted by the 4th respondent was in excess of Rs.18,720/- than the tender quoted by the petitioner-society. That apart, the tender of the 4th respondent was in gross violation of condition No.4 of the tender conditions, which mandates that the members of the society shall have at-least one year previous experience. It is also alleged that the 4th respondent-society was defunct prior to the tender notification and the society was renewed on 28.02.2009 only for the purpose of participating in the tender process. It is alleged that the 3rd respondent-Chairperson of the Municipality was interested in the 4th respondent-society and the said society had participated in the tender process only at the instance of the 3rd respondent. It is also contended that the ratification of the impugned work order by the 3rd respondent is without authority and illegal and that the municipal council alone is competent to ratify. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipality, it is stated that the petitioner-society which had quoted minus value of Rs.15.60 paise per each worker per day and expressed its readiness to bear monetary loss of Rs.46,800/- per each month, defeats the object of G.O.Rt.No.1289 of Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 09.09.2008 which requires that every contract worker who is engaged in sanitation department must be paid Rs.3,900/- per month along with E.S.I., P.F. benefits and etc., It is further stated that keeping in view the purport of G.O.Rt.No.1289 dated 09.09.2008, each contractor was allowed to quote up to 5% excess over the estimated rates towards remuneration for supply of contract labour. However, the petitioner-society had quoted 12% less which worked out at Rs.2,80,800/- for the whole contract period of six months. So far as the allegation that the 3rd respondent was not competent to ratify, it is submitted that as per Section 49 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipality Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’), the Chairperson of the Municipality has the power to pass the order in anticipation in the absence of Council meeting and in such circumstances, the ratification by the Council can be obtained in the immediate next meeting. Accordingly, the order dated 31.03.2009 was ratified by the Municipal Council in the next immediate meeting held on 30.04.2009 vide Council resolution No.4. While specifically denying all the other allegations made against the 3rd respondent, it is reiterated that the tender granted in favour of the 4th respondent is in accordance with law. I have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties. The law is well settled that the lowest tenderer cannot claim any right for awarding the work. Right to choose the best person for execution of work tendered cannot be considered an arbitrary power except whose such power is exercised for any collateral purpose. In the instant case, the petitioner had admittedly quoted 12% less than the estimated rates. Though it is the lowest, the Municipality having found that the rates quoted by the petitioner were not workable to meet the minimum wages to the workmen prescribed under G.O.Rt.No.1289 dated 09.09.2008, decided to award the work to the 4th respondent-society. The said action cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. Section 49 of the Act, which provides for emergency powers of the Chairperson makes it clear that in cases of emergency, the Chairperson may direct the execution of any work which would ordinarily require sanction of the council. It is also not in dispute that subsequently, the action of the 3rd respondent was ratified in the next immediate meeting of the Council vide resolution No.4 dated 30.04.2009. In the circumstances, the impugned action cannot be held to be illegal and the interference by this Court is unwarranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 23–07-2009 KLP