HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 14423 of 2009 DATED: 16.11.2009 Between: Sri Kanaka Durga Labour Contract Works .. Petitioner and 1. The Commissioner 2. The District Coordinator of Hospital Services 3. The Chairman 4. The Medical Superintendent 5. Swashakthi Mahila Mandali .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioner-contractor asserts that he entered into a contract with the 4th respondent to undertake sanitary work for maintenance of sanitation and cleaning of toilets and floor areas at Government WFTB & CD Hospital, Nellore, for the period from 01.05.2004 to 31.05.2007 and for a period of ten months from 01.06.2008 to 31.03.2009. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 01.04.2009, it was extended for a period of three months from 01.04.2009 to 30.06.2009. While so, the petitioner states that the 4th respondent issued Notification dated 12.06.2009 calling for tenders for the very same work for the period from 01.07.2009 to 31.03.2010. The petitioner states that himself and four others submitted their tenders, and though his tender is the lowest, the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 09.07.2009 awarded the contract in favour of the 5th respondent. Questioning the said proceedings of the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The 4th respondent-Medical Superintendent, filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, and stated that as per the terms and conditions of the Tender Notification, the lowest bidder must deposit the earnest money deposit, and even though the petitioner submitted the lowest bid, but as he did not deposit the earnest money and furnish the deposit receipt along with the Tender Form, they rejected his tender, and allotted the contract work in favour of the second lowest bidder, namely the 5th respondent, who had deposited the earnest money of Rs.25,000/-. It is further stated that if any dispute arises in the administration of the contract, the petitioner has to approach the Commissioner, APVVP, whose decision shall be final and binding on the contract, but the petitioner, without approaching the said authority, has directly filed this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.52, dated 18.03.2000, the petitioner is exempted from depositing Earnest Money, and therefore, the 4th respondent, is not justified in rejecting the tender of the petitioner, which is the lowest, and awarding the same in favour of the 5th respondent, is illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the material placed on record. On 20.7.2009, this Court, while ordering Notice Before Admission, observed that the allotment of work in favour of the 5th respondent in terms of the impugned order shall be subject to further orders of this Court. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments. As the respondents did not file counter, this Court directed the appearance of the 4th respondent on 22.10.2009, on which day, he appeared, and elaborate arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner while contending that the petitioner is exempted from payment of Earnest Money Deposit vide orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 52, dated 18.03.2000, sought time to produce some material before this Court, and accordingly, at his request, the matter was adjourned to 26.10.2009, on which day, the counsel for the petitioner against sought adjournment. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to this day on condition that if the petitioner fails to produce the relevant material, he shall pay costs. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner further seeks time to produce the material. A careful perusal of the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.52, dated 18.03.2000 would clearly reveal that the benefit of exemption from payment of Earnest Money Deposit is applicable to contractors engaged in sanitation work in Transport, Roads & Buildings, Irrigation & CAD, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Industries and Commerce, Backward Class Welfare, Social Welfare and Agriculture and Co-operative Departments. Admittedly, the present contract is with respect to the works in Medical and Health Department, which is not covered by G.O. Ms. No. 52, dated 18.03.2000. Since Medical and Health Department, is not covered by G.O. Ms. No. 52, dated 18.03.2000, the petitioner cannot seek the benefit of exemption of payment of earnest money, as provided thereunder. Apart from the above, the petitioner has not controverted the averments made by the 4th respondent in the counter affidavit, and also failed to produce the relevant material in spite of granting several opportunities. Hence, viewed from any angle, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.500/- to be paid by the petitioner. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 16.11.2009 bcj