HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 21381 of 2009 DATED: 07.10.2009 Between: Pandith Rajeshwer ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Korutla Municipality 2. Saibaba Transport .....RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R:- The petitioner, who claims to be Councilor of Ward No.18 of Korutla Municipality, asserts that the 1st respondent-Municipality issued Notification dated 08.12.2005 calling for tenders for supply of 4 Tractors for lifting the garbage in Korutla Municipality for the period from 01.01.2006 to 20.04.2006. The 2nd respondent was awarded the contract for supply of the Tractors for the said period. However, even after expiry of the said period, the 1st respondent-Municipality, without calling for tenders, is extending the contract in favour of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner states that the Government sanctioned funds for purchase of 3 Tractors, 4 Autos, 45 Tricycles and 3 Bullock carts to the 1st respondent-Municipality, for clearing the garbage and supply of drinking water to the residents/villagers in Municipal limits. Though the 1st respondent-Municipality is owning those vehicles, yet the 1st respondent for the year 2009-10, without calling for any fresh tenders, extended the contract in favour of the 2nd respondent for supply of 4 Tractors, for the period from 31.08.2009 to 31.07.2010 by passing a Resolution No.74, dated 22.08.2009. Protesting such action of the 1st respondent-Municipality, the petitioner states that he made a representation dated 23.9.2009 requesting the 1st respondent not to enter into any agreement with the 2nd respondent for supply of Tractors, but it is his grievance that the 1st respondent has not passed any orders so far on his representation. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the 1st respondent-Municipality has its own vehicles, there is no necessity for the 1st respondent-Municipality, to extend the contract in favour of the 2nd respondent, for supply of 4 Tractors, for supply of drinking water to the villagers/residents in Korutla Municipality, and that too without issuing tender notification. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Korutla Municipality. The petitioner claims to be a Councillor of 1st respondent- Municipality. Whether the vehicles owned by the 1st respondent- Municipality, are sufficient for clearing the garbage and for supply of drinking water to the residents of the Municipality, and if not, how many vehicles can be hired for the said purpose, are matters of policy on which the 1st respondent-Municipality is competent to take. This Court cannot in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide as to how many vehicles are needed for the 1st respondent-Municipality to meet its needs/demands and whether the existing vehicles are sufficient to meet the needs or not. Be that as it may, according to the own admission of the petitioner, the 1st respondent-Municipality is said to have passed a resolution for hiring vehicles, and if the petitioner feels that the vehicles owned by the 1st respondent-Municipality are sufficient for clearing the garbage and supply of drinking water and there is no need to hire any vehicles, then he could have well opposed the resolution passed by the 1st respondent-Municipality for hiring, but the petitioner without doing that has filed the present writ petition. Hence, I see no merits in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 07.10.2009 bcj