THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.17857 of 2009 June 07, 2010 Between: M/s.Paidala Thirupathi Reddy & Bros., a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner, P.Thirupathi Reddy, S/o.Jayarama Reddy … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj (Engineering) Department, represented by its Chief Engineer, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.17857 of 2009 ORDER: The second respondent invited tenders for the work of “providing BT Surface to the Double Lane from Puthalapattu to meet Chittoor- Irala Road (via) Palakuru and Chigarapalli” at an estimated cost of Rs.2,67,98,234/-. The petitioner and fourth respondent submitted their tenders in two sealed bids each containing technical bid and financial bid. At the evaluation of technical bids, petitioner was disqualified on the ground that he failed to produce experience certificate as per Condition No.6 of the Tender Conditions. The same is to the effect that the tenderor should enclose the experience certificate issued by an officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer duly countersigned by the Officer of the rank of Superintending Engineer or equivalent officer. The condition also warrants that failure to produce experience certificate would result in summary rejection of the tender as incomplete. After disqualifying the petitioner, the tender submitted by fourth respondent was found to be responsive both technically and financially. A recommendation was made by the second respondent to Commissioner of Tenders (CoT), which on 18.8.2009 under the Chairmanship of CoT accepted to recommend qualified tender of fourth respondent at minus (–)0.09% less than estimated cost. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 25.8.2009 assailing the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not opening the petitioner’s financial bid as illegal and arbitrary. This Court while directing the Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter ordered status quo on 28.8.2009 and the matter was posted for admission. Respondents 1 to 3 moved the application being W.V.M.P. No.2926 of 2009 for vacating the interim order. The counsel for petitioner submits that his client has submitted experience certificate issued by Municipal Engineer, Chittoor, and countersigned by the Commissioner of Chittoor Municipality, which is sufficient compliance with Condition No.6 of Tender Conditions. He also relies on Memo No.130/Reg/Gnl/T1/2008, dated 26.8.2008, issued by the Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health). The same is to the effect that experience certificate may be signed by the Superintending Engineer or next higher authority in the organization. After giving due consideration, this Court is not convinced with the argument. The memo of the the Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health) has no application to Panchayat Raj Department and no such clarificatory memo issued by the the Engineer-in-Chief (Panchayat Raj) is placed before this Court. Secondly, the memo referred to herein above does not support the contention that this experience certificate issued by the Municipal Engineer and countersigned by the Commissioner, Chittoor Municipality, is equivalent to the experience certificate issued by the Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department and countersigned by the Superintending Engineer (Panchayat Raj) or equivalent officer. Therefore the writ petition is misconceived. As the writ petition is listed for admission, this Court does not find any prima facie case to admit the writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed and the interim order stands vacated. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 07, 2010 YS