THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25667 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a construction company. The 1st respondent issued a tender notice dated 30.09.2009 for awarding the contract of maintenance of railway track. The petitioner was not awarded the contract, on the ground that he did not fulfil the conditions. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that one of the conditions incorporated in the tender notice is that the tenderer must have the experience of supplying 1000 cubic meters of ballast and that the petitioner did not fulfil that condition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was being awarded the contract of maintenance of railway track by the respondents for the past several years. However, it is not in dispute that the respondents incorporated two important conditions in their tender notice viz., experience in maintenance of track up to the length of 97 kilo meters and supply of ballast of 1000 cubic meters. Though the petitioner fulfils the first condition, it did not have the experience in supplying the 1000 meters of ballast. The mere fact that the petitioner had supplied fairly large quantity of ballast to other agencies, which itself is not up to 1000 cubic meters, cannot be treated as a compliance. The material mentioned in the tender notice is work specific and ballast must have been for maintenance of railway track. The petitioner does not state that it has supplied ballast for maintenance of railway track up to the quantity mentioned. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 14.12.2009 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25667 of 2009 Date: 14.12.2009 JSU