HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24422 of 2011 Date: 12.10.2011 Between: T.Papesh ..... Petitioner AND: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Pochiraju Rameswara Prasad For Sri Dadi Radha Krishna Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Pavan Kumar Aditya Malladi For Ms.Shanti Neelam Standing Counsel for Municipalities The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash the tender notification No.SI/333/2011-2012, dated 20.07.2011, of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has issued the impugned tender notification, for undertaking sanitation work in four zones, inviting the tenders from the eligible of SC/ST/Vaddera Co-Operative Societies, DWCRA Group and the registered contractors, having man power and equipment and registered with Nirmal Municipality. M/s Ayyappa Outsourcing Agency, of which, the petitioner is Proprietor filed its tenders. On the ground that respondent No.2 has not opened the tenders as per the schedule on 30.07.2011, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, shows that the main grievance of the petitioner pertains to non-finalisation of the tenders, despite his representations, dated 27.07.2011 and 30.07.2011. A vague averment has, however, been made that in the said representations, the petitioner has brought to the notice of respondent No.3 that some of the persons who participated in the tender process are not qualified. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2-the Deputy Executive Engineer and In-charge Commissioner, Nirmal Municipality, it is inter alia stated that as per the fixed schedule, the tenders were opened in the presence of the contractors on 30.07.2011. Along with the counter-affidavit, respondent No.2 has filed copies of the Note File relating to the tender notices for the three zones, which show the petitioner at Serial No.2, on the basis of the rates quoted by him. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lowest tenderer namely M/s Jai Bheem S.T. Labour Contract Co-Operative Society, Nirmal, has not satisfied the requirements contained in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Clause 2 of the note contained in the tender notice and therefore, its tenders cannot be accepted. As noted above, except raising a vague plea that some of the tenderers have not satisfied with the tender requirements, no specific averments have been raised by the petitioner in this regard in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition. However, in the reply-affidavit, for the first time, the petitioner has stated that respondent No.2 has not stated in the counter-affidavit that M/s Jai Bheem S.T. Labour Contract Co-Operative Society, Nirmal, is having latest Audit Report, licence from the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Pan Card, EPF and ESI Code, and therefore, the said agency has not satisfied the tender conditions rendering itself ineligible for awarding of the contract. In my opinion, as the petitioner failed to make specific allegations in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, respondent No.2 is denied the opportunity of meeting the allegations made by the petitioner for the first time in the reply-affidavit. If what the petitioner alleged regarding the non-satisfaction of the tender requirements by M/s Jai Bheem S.T. Labour Contract Co-Operative Society, Nirmal, is true, certainly it would be ineligible for award of the contract. Respondent No.2 is, therefore, directed to examine the allegations made by the petitioner in this regard and take a decision on the eligibility of M/s Jai Bheem S.T. Labour Contract Co-Operative Society, Nirmal, in the light of the tender conditions. If respondent No.2 is convinced that M/s Jai Bheem S.T. Labour Contract Co-Operative Society, Nirmal, does not satisfy the tender requirements, he shall not accept the tenders of the said agency, and in such an event, he shall consider the petitioner’s tenders, which are shown to be the second lowest. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.29994 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th October 2011 DR