THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 8847 of 2011 Dated: 18.04.2011 Between: Sri V.Srinivas, Ranga Reddy District. … Petitioner And The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 8847 of 2011 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents in confirming the petitioner’s bid and entering into a contract with him for annual lease of right of collection of parking fee for the year 2010- 2011 for lot No.98, i.e. Rythu Bazar to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Bhavan is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent issued a notification dated 13.09.2010 inviting sealed tenders for grant of annual lease of right of collection of property fees for the year 2010-2011 in respect of parking lot No.98 i.e. from Rythu Bazar to Babu Jagjeevanram Bhavan and the auction was conducted on 20.09.2010. Altogether, 17 participants, including the petitioner had participated in the auction. The fact that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 39,600/- towards EMD and his bid was found to be the highest is also not in dispute. In spite of the same as the respondents did not enter into a contract, the present writ petition has been filed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that for grant of the said annual lease initially tenders were invited vide notification dated 10.06.2010 and in the said auction the highest bid was Rs. 17.00 lakhs. However, the successful bidder failed to make the payment within the stipulated time and therefore, a fresh notification was issued on 13.09.2010. However, in the second auction held on 20.09.2010, the highest bid received was only Rs.1,21,000/-. Since the offer was found to be very meagre and collusion among the participants was suspected, the Commissioner, GHMC did not approve the said auction and by order dated 16.11.2010 directed to recall the tender. Accordingly, the auction conducted on 20.09.2010 was cancelled and all the participants were informed of the same by letter dated 21.03.2011. Having regard to the specific stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the auction was not approved by the competent authority for reasons recorded and it was subsequently cancelled, I am unable to hold that the action of the respondents in not entering into a contract with the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. Merely because the petitioner was the highest bidder, he cannot claim any vested right to the award of contract. As noticed above, this is a case where the entire tender was cancelled assigning proper reasons. No case could be made out by the petitioner to show that the decision of the respondents was contrary to law or vitiated by arbitrariness. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be a direction to the respondents to return the EMD paid by the petitioner if not already returned. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 18.04.2011 KLP