THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.24210 of 2011 Dated 27th August, 2011 Between: M/s.Kailasa Giri Sanitory Workers Association …Petitioner And The Municipal Commissioner, Puttur Municipality, Puttur, Chittoor District and anogther …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri J.Lokesh Reddy Counsel for respondents: --- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in considering the tender application of respondent No.2 as illegal and contrary to the terms of tender notification, bearing Roc.No.356/E1/2011, dated 20.04.2011. The petitioner is a Sanitary Workers Association, which filed its tender for maintenance of street lights, water supply, office maintenance and supply of drivers for the year 2011-12 in the area of Puttur Municipality. Respondent No.2 is also another tenderer, which filed its tender for the said work. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 is not eligible for being considered and that respondent No.1 has recommended its name for entrustment of contract in its favour. At the hearing, Sri J.Lokesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on Annexure to the tender notification, which provided for preference to be given in favour of certain categories of agencies. On a careful reading of this document, I am of the opinion that the same pertains to the preference to be given to the agencies, which satisfy the requirements contained therein. It is not the case of the petitioner that these conditions render respondent No.2 ineligible for consideration. The said conditions at best may support the case of the petitioner in its claim for preference over respondent No.2. According to the petitioner’s unofficial information, respondent No.1 has recommended the case of respondent No.2 for award of contract by the Puttur Municipality. Even according to the petitioner, no decision has been taken by the Municipal Council so far. In the light of these admitted facts, I am of the opinion that the cause for filing this writ petition has not arisen as yet for the petitioner, as by its very nature, the recommendations of the Municipal Commissioner does not bind the Municipal Council, which is entitled to take an independent decision considering the tender conditions, including the above-noted conditions contained in the Annexure referred to above. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29694 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th August, 2011 VGB