IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12705 of 2002 Between : K.Madhusudhan REddy, S/o. K.Yadi Reddy, R/o. H.No. 1-125, Champapet, L.B.Nagar Municciplity, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Rural DEvelopment, New Delhi. 2 The Registrar, National Institute of Rural Development, Rajendranagar, R.R.District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Second Respondent in cancelling the tender of the Petitioner without notice after it was accepted and acted upon as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and violation of Principles of natural continue the work permitted by the Second Respondent to commence the work vide its letter dated 16-8-2001. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : MR.B.VENKATESWARA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in cancelling the tender awarded to him, without issuing any notice, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to allow him to carry out the work as per letter, dated 16th of August 2001, issued by the 2nd respondent. 2. The 2nd respondent/National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) has called for tenders for construction of Waste Water Management Plant i.e. recycling of sewerage water at NIRD Campus, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner has submitted his tender, offering his bid at Rs.21,71,191-40 ps. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent vide letter, dated 16th August 2001, that his tender was accepted and he was asked to commence the work allotted to him, by entering into an agreement. But, subsequently, he was intimated that the work allotted to him, was cancelled. The petitioner questions such cancellation, mainly on the ground that there is no valid reason for cancelling the work allotted to him, as he has quoted the least price in his bid, and that he has also executed works to some extent, by the date he was intimated about cancellation. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the Executive Engineer of the 2nd respondent/institute. While generally denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter that though initially, the petitioner was informed that his tender was accepted, but subsequently, it was found that while doing calculations, an error has crept in, which resulted in such communication to the petitioner, on the premise that the price quoted by him was the minimum, but having noticed that there was another offer, which was at lesser price than the price offered by the petitioner, the work allotted to him was cancelled. 4. While admitting the writ petition, this Court granted interim orders, dated 17.07.2002, staying entrustment of work partly completed by the petitioner, to any third party. Thereafter, on 28.07.2003, while disposing of the vacate petition filed by the 2nd respondent, the earlier order, dated 17.07.2002, was made absolute, subject to deposit of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by the petitioner, with the Registrar of the 2nd respondent/institute. 5. When the matter is taken up today, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that, as the petitioner did not deposit the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as per the orders of this Court, dated 28.07.2003, the work was allotted to another bidder, who is eligible as per rules, and that the work has already been completed. 6. In view of the above submission, though it is the case of the petitioner that there is no reason for cancelling his tender, it is clear from the counter affidavit that the price quoted by the petitioner is not the lowest price, but, due to some error in making calculations, he was informed that his tender was accepted. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has already executed some works by spending huge amount, it is to be noticed that the said cancellation was even prior to entering into any agreement by the parties. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned in this writ petition. If the petitioner has suffered any loss in the process, it is open for him to seek appropriate remedy, but, in view of the fact that the project has already been completed and the petitioner has not complied with the condition imposed by this Court in its orders, dated 28.07.2003, no relief can be granted at this stage, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Subject to above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd June 2009 ktl/asp/ajr