IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.8300 of 2010 Between: Byrraju Venkata Subba Raju. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.V.Ananta Krishna for Sri Pappu Srinivasa Rao. Counsel for the respondents: Sri Andapalli Sanjeeva Kumar for R.3 & R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seeking to entrust the work to a single contractor and deprive opportunity to all other eligible contractors in respect of the proposed constructions of permanent Social Welfare Residential School Complexes in five Districts under Package No.1 through tender notification, dated 25-3-2010, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri Pappu Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri Andapalli Sanjeeva Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner is a Class-I contractor, who intended to file tender in respect of the above mentioned works. His grievance, as projected in his affidavit, is that as the respondents have called for tenders by including different items of works under each of the five packages, he and similarly situated various other contractors will be rendered ineligible for filing their bids in view of the high value of the work requiring very high bid capacity. The petitioner pleaded that as many as 38 permanent Social Welfare Residential School Complexes are envisaged across the State with the project cost of Rs.372.25 crores; that under Package No.1, in respect of which the petitioner intended to file his tender, the works proposed to be executed in five Districts are grouped together and treated as one single work costing Rs.8685.36 lakhs; and that if the said works are divided district-wise, the cost of each work will get reduced considerably giving opportunity to small contractors, such as the petitioner, to file their bids. Indubitably the works, in respect of which tenders have been called for, are envisaged under a Scheme. The scope of judicial review by this Court does not comprehend a dispute of the nature projected by the petitioner, inasmuch as the Executive Government is the best judge to decide how to get the works executed and this Court will not substitute its opinion with that of the State and its officers. The petitioner does not have any legal or constitutional right to insist that the method of preparation of the Schemes and execution of works should be such that they should suit the financial capacity of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the decision taken by the respondents to include the works in five Districts under Package No.1 does not call for interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:15-4-2010 MNR