IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10661 of 2004 Between: K. Venkateswararao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Tadepalligudem Municipality, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2. Prakash Arts ..... RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent- Commissioner, Tadepalligudem Municipality, West Godavari District, in allotting the works notified in tender notice, dated 09.06.2004, issued in ROC No.315/2003-G, although, he has offered highest bids in pursuance thereof. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. 3. The first respondent-Municipality has issued tender notice, dated 09.06.2004, inviting bids for erection of 78 pole boards each of 0.75 mm x 0.60 mm size for 39 electric poles in central divider between Over Bridge Center to Gollagudem Center and 48 pole boards each of 0.75 mm x 0.60 mm size for 24 electric poles in Central divider between Modern Café and Jayalakshmi Theatre with a direction that the highest bidders should deposit one year advertisement fee in advance. From the conditions notified in the tender notice, it is evident that the period is only one year. 4. In this Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that pursuant to the said tender notice, sealed tenders were received, wherein, the petitioner has offered the highest rate of Rs.1,06,464/- and the second respondent has offered Rs.1,02,680/-. It is stated that although the petitioner was the highest bidder, the first respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, conducted a fresh open auction on 23.06.2004. 5. At the stage of admission, this Court, by interim order, dated 29.06.2004, has stayed all further proceedings relating to grant of works notified by respondent No.1 in tender notice, dated 09-06-2004, and the said order continued since then. 6. Though this Writ Petition is of the year 2004, no counter-affidavit has, so far, been filed on behalf of the respondents. But, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent that in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the first respondent- Municipality itself has erected the pole boards and collected the advertisement fee directly. 7. Inasmuch as tender notice, dated 09-06-2004, is only for a period of one year and the said period is over and the works notified therein were not allotted to any third party pursuant to the interim order of this Court, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the first respondent-Municipality that if further works are to be allotted to any private parties, it should be done only by issuing fresh tender notice/auction notice inviting the bids. 8. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) Date: 13th August, 2009 KL/LUR