IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 649 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/04/2009 in WP NO : 1559 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Shri Sai Distributors, IInd floor, Thakur Bhavan Thakur Nagar, R.R.Thakur Marg, Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai, Maharastra rep by Divesh Surendra Thakur, S/o.Surendra Thakur ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Koti Hyderabad, rep.by its Commissioner 2 Andhra Pradesh Health & Medical Housing & Infrastrucuture Development Corporation, Third floor, DM & HS office Campus, Sultan Bazar Hyderabad, Rep.by its Managing Director 3 The Government of Andhra Pradsh, Medical & Health Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad Rep.by its Principal Secretary 4 Union of India., Maternal Health Division, Department of Health & Family Welfare , New Delhi, rep.by its Secretary 5 M/s.Sur Electrical company (P) Ltd., Kolkata West Bengal, Rep.by is Technical Directory, Mr.chinmoy Sur S/o.Priyadarshan Sur aged about 45 years, Occ:Business, R/o.25/1 Convent Road,Kolkata, West Bengal. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: Mr. A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Asst. Solicitor General Counsel for the Respondent No.5: Mr. B. Narayan Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 649 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 30.04.2009, passed by a learned single Judge made in Writ Petition No. 1559 of 2009. The appellant who is the writ petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single Judge seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in finalizing the tenders called for through ‘E’ Procurement vide Tender Notice No. 18/APHMHIDC/ Drugs Wing/ 2008-09, dated 2.8.2008, in respect of procurement of Neonatal Respirators as illegal and arbitrary. It also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to finalise the tenders by evaluating the machinery of the appellant and the 5th respondent as per the recommendations of the Evaluating Committee. Initially, on 6.2.2009, the learned single Judge while posting the matter for admission on 13.2.2009, directed the respondents not to procure the equipment for which the tenders were issued, otherwise than by inviting competitive bids. Subsequently, when the matter was listed before the learned single judge on 30.04.2009, the learned single Judge passed the following order: “…Delete from the caption ‘for dismissal’. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, post immediately after summer vacation, 2009. In the meanwhile, it is directed that if the 5th respondent has supplied any material on the basis of any competitive bids, the bills therefor shall not be withheld…” Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the present writ appeal. Smt. B. Neeraja Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has not received any communication with regard to finalisation of ‘E’ tenders and the learned single Judge passed the impugned order pending the vacate petition. She further stated that the father of the appellant died on 24.04.2009 and, therefore, she could not obtain any instructions from the appellant nor was she in a position to file any reply affidavit to the counter filed by the respondents. She, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 30.04.2009 be set aside. On the other hand, Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent would contend that in view of the fact that the 5th respondent has supplied some material to the respondents, on account of which some bills are pending for payment, and, therefore, the learned single Judge is justified in passing the impugned order observing that in the event of the 5th respondent having supplied any material on the basis of the competitive bids, the bills therefor shall not be withheld. However, in view of the fact that the vacate petition filed by the 5th respondent herein is still pending before the learned Single Judge, suffice it to stay the order dated 30.4.2009, impugned in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of staying the impugned order dated 30.4.2009 and directing the Registry to list the Vacate Stay Petition for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 01.06.2009. No order as to cost. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _____________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar May 6, 2009 Operative portion by wire at party’s costs PNB/MAS