HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25993 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was assigned the contract of transporting LPG Cylinders to various villages in Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District, way back in the year 2000. Ever since then, he is continuing. The 4th respondent is nominated by the Project Director of DRDA as representative of a Selfhelp group. On consideration of the same, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings, dated 11-10-2010, awarding contract to the 4th respondent for a period of one year, with effect from 14-10-2010. The rate was stipulated as Rs.5/- per cylinder and other conditions were also imposed. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings. According to the petitioner, twice tender notices were issued and he submitted his tender by quoting Rs.4/- per cylinder and he alleges that for the reasons best known to the 2nd respondent, the process of inviting of tenders was dropped and the 4th respondent was awarded the contract by nomination basis. 2. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, a counter – affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioner is continuing as an agency to transport the cylinders for the past more than 10 years and every effort made by them was thwarted by the petitioner by resorting to several means. It is stated that in response to a tender, the petitioner got filed certain tenders quoting 1 paise per cylinder, obviously, to frustrate the effort and thereby to continue as a contractor. 3. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 4. It is rather surprising that the petitioner is continuing as a contractor for the past 10 years, particularly, when the duration of the contract is only one year, even if it is awarded after inviting tenders. The 2nd respondent did make efforts to invite tenders and award the contact on consideration of the bids. The facts furnished in the counter–affidavit, however, make startling revelation. In response to tender notice, dated 19-02-2010, the tenders were filed with such a ridiculous rates that the least of it was 10 paise per cylinder. It is alleged that it was the unity working of the petitioner herein. Response to a tender notice, dated 09-04-2010 was still frustrating. A person by name V. Krishna Reddy filed tender quoting 1 paise per cylinder. It is relevant to mention that some individual quoted Rs.3.99 paise per cylinder in response to tender notice dated 19-02-2010. The efforts behind the scene are clearly evident that the respondents 1 to 3 cannot be taken for discussion like this. Under these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The 4th respondent shall be permitted to run the contract for a period of one year from the date of commencement. Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 3 shall consider the feasibility of inviting tenders for choosing the contractor for the subsequent period. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J March 30, 2011 Note: Issue CC in three days. B/O. KTL