THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NOs.27444 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Ashok Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and V.Ch.Naidu, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Guntur Municipal Corporation. At their request, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the interlocutory stage. Petitioners, six in number, are all societies whose members belong to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Pursuant to a notification issued by the 2nd respondent on 29.4.2009 inviting tenders, for sanitation work during night times in the areas where it is not possible to take up sanitation work during the day time, the petitioners also participated in the tender process and, pursuant to a lottery system, were selected for being awarded the contract. The Standing Committee, vide resolution No.578 dated 4.7.2009, accepted the proposal of the Commissioner. Since no work order was issued, the petitioners filed W.P.No.23145 of 2009 and this Court, by order dated 6.11.2009, disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Guntur Municipal Corporation and its Mayor to take immediate steps to issue work orders in favour of such of the petitioners, who had been selected as agencies in pursuance of the tender notice dated 29.4.2009, within a period of two weeks. Pursuant thereto, an agreement was entered into on 25.11.2009 for a period of 12 months with effect from 1.12.2009. However, by proceedings dated 5.12.2009, the earlier work order period of 12 months was reduced till 31.3.2010. Sri K.Ashok Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, would contend that, since the tender notice itself requires the work to be allotted for a period of 12 months and, in as much as the delay in allotting the work was solely on account of respondents 2 and 3, the petitioners were entitled to continue to execute the sanitation works till 30.11.2010. Learned counsel would submit that, even otherwise, since the Corporation has not as yet issued a fresh notification, inviting eligible applicants to submit their respective bids to execute the works in question, the petitioners societies were entitled to continue till then. Sri V.Ch.Naidu, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation would submit that the tender notification made it amply clear that applications were being invited for supply of workers for a period of 12 months for the financial year 2009- 2010 to undertake the works during nights and under G.O.Ms.No.581 dated 6.11.1996; and in as much as the financial year 2009-2010 ended on 31.3.2010 the Corporation was justified in restricting allotment of work till 31.3.2010 after correcting the earlier work allotment order whereby the petitioners were permitted to execute the work till 30.11.2010. On a query from this Court as to who were executing the sanitation work after 1.4.2010, as no auction had been held, Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Corporation would shortly issue a notification seeking applications from eligible applicants. While the tender notice does state that workers are required to be supplied for 12 months it also makes it clear that the 12 month period is only for the financial year 2009-10 and, as the financial year 2009-2010 came to an end on 31.3.2010, the Corporation was justified in restricting allotment of work to the petitioners only till 31.3.2010. The fact however, remains that it is only on account of the inordinate delay on the part of the Corporation in allotting the work that the petitioners had to approach this Court, and it is only pursuant to an order of this Court was the work order issued on 25.11.2009 by which time nearly eight months had already elapsed. In such circumstances, I consider it appropriate to direct respondents 2 and 3 to continue engaging the services of the petitioners for executing the sanitation works in question till a fresh notification is issued inviting bids and works are allotted pursuant thereto. It is made clear that the petitioners are also entitled to participate in the bid process on a notification being issued afresh and that their entitlement to continue to render scavenging services by deputing workmen would only be till the work is allotted afresh pursuant to the tender notification to be issued by the Corporation. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________ 21-4-2010 Note: C.C. by 26.4.2010 B/o asp