IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28256 of 2008 Between: Ajay Kumar Ghosh Kalluri Mandaiah Kalluri R/o.D.No.7-271, 3rd Lane, Sujata Nagar, Near Police Ground, Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Engineer-in-Chief (Roads & Buildings) Administration & National Highways, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Commissionerate of Tenders, 6th floor, B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Irrigation & CAD (PW Reforms) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare letter No.012100/TA1/RE2/2007, dated 26-06- 2007, and G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 22-05-2007, as illegal and arbitrary, and to further declare that the modified conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 22-05- 2007, are not applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of his application dated 28-03-2007, for registration as Class I Contractor. The petitioner is existing Class III (Civil) Contractor. He applied for registration as Class I Contractor on 28- 03-2007. On the date of his application, registration of Contractors was governed by G.O.Ms.No.94, I&CAD (PW:COD) Department, dated 01-07-2003. While the petitioner’s application was pending, the said GO was modified by GO.Ms.No.130, I&CAD (PW:REFORMS) Department, dated 22-05-2007. Respondent No.1, by his proceedings dated 26-06-2007 addressed to the petitioner, informed him that his application for registration as Class I Contractor was returned by the Commissionerate of Tenders, for not complying with certain conditions contained in GO.Ms.No.130, dated 22-05-2007, and requested the petitioner to furnish the documents mentioned therein to reprocess his application. At the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since, on the date of application of the petitioner for registration as Class I Contractor, G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01-07-2003, was in force, there is no justification for the respondents in asking the petitioner to comply with the conditions contained in G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 22-05- 2007. In support of the petitioner’s contention, he relied on Para 4 of G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 22-05-2007, which reads as under: ‘In the circumstances reported by the Commissioner, Commissionerate of Tenders and in view of the recommendations made by the Engineer-in-Chief and board of Chief Engineers in their meeting held on 15-09-2006, Government hereby issue amendments to G.O.Ms.No.94, I&CAD dated 1-7- 2003 as shown in the annexure to this order. These modifications will come into effect from the date of issue of the orders and shall be applicable for all the new applicants and also for the existing contractors whenever they apply for re- registration after expiry of the existing registration validity period.’ The above reproduced portion of G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 22-05-2007, does not support the contention of the petitioner that the pending applications shall be considered, without reference to the modifications made to G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01-07-2003, under GO.Ms.No.130 dated 22-05-2007. On the other hand, the above portion of the GO makes it clear that it applies to all the new applicants. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner is a new applicant, albeit the fact that his application was pending when GO.Ms.No.130, dated 22- 05-2007, was issued. But, on the mere ground of pendency of his application, there is no warrant for the petitioner to contend that the new GO cannot be applied to his application. The very fact that GO.Ms.No.130, dated 22-05-2007, was issued, having felt that norms for registration of contractors fixed in G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01-07-2003, needed revision, would disentitle the petitioner to contend that his application is required to be considered in the light of the pre-existing conditions contained in G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 01-07-2003. Acceptance of such contention would render the very purpose of modifying the conditions by GO.Ms.No.130, dated 22-05-2007, nugatory. In the premises mentioned above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.36928 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 9th April, 2008 lur