THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 14228 of 2009 O r d e r: The petitioner, namely Sri Bhanuteja Yuvajana Sangham, represented by its President filed the present writ petition stating that in pursuance of the Tender Notification dated 18.05.2009 issued by respondent No.1-Municipality for supply of workers for the purpose of maintaining and undertaking cleaning works, the petitioner, respondent No.3 and one other person submitted their tenders. That respondent No.1, which scrutinized the tenders, found certain defects in all the tenders, decided to cancel the tender notification and issue fresh tender notification. However, the petitioner states that respondent No.1 without canceling the tender notification, accepted the tender of respondent No.3, based on the resolution passed by respondent No.2-Municipal Council, which was passed considering the fact that respondent No.3 agreed to supply the workers for the estimated value quoted without asking for any commission thereon. It is this action of respondent No.1 in awarding the contract work to respondent No.3, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Even though the petitioners contends that in view of defects found in all the tenders received, respondent No.1 ought to have cancelled the tender notification and issued fresh notification, the fact remains, whether or not to waive minor defects while considering the finalization of the tenders/contracts is for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who have issued the tender notification. Be that as it may, as can be seen from the stand taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 except respondent No.3, who agreed to supply workers at the estimated amount of Rs.15,91,261/- fixed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the tender, the petitioner and another are said to have claimed 15% and 4.05% commission on the estimated amount of Rs.15,91,21/-, and since respondent No.3 agreed to supply workers at the estimated amount fixed without claiming any commission, the Municipal Council, which is the governing and policy- decision taking body of respondent No.1-Municipality, instead of canceling the tender and calling for fresh tenders, which would entail costs, thought it fit to award contract in favour of respondent No.3, and accordingly passed a unanimous resolution in C.R. No. 36, dated 29.06.2009, for award of contract in favour of respondent No.3. Inasmuch as the decision taken by respondent No.2-Municipal Council, is in the financial interest of respondent No.1-Municipality, no exception can be taken to the action of respondent No.1 in not canceling the tenders and issuing fresh notification and instead awarding contract in favour of respondent No.3 based on the resolution passed by respondent No.2. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: September, 2009 KSR