IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 654 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/06/2008 in WP NO : 4296 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Hyderabad Shakar Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd. (Regd. No. TAC-467), 22-2-750, Noor Khan Bazar, Hyderabad- 500 024. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by the Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Chief Transport Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Jail Garden, Chaderghat, Near Malakpet Railway Station, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.R.V.SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 654 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 13th June 2008 passed in writ petition No.4296 of 2008, this appeal has been filed by Labour Contract Co-operative Society, claiming a priority in getting certain work from the 1st respondent/Municipal Corporation in view of provisions of Rule 11 (2) (vi) of The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tender Rules, 1970. 2. It was the case of the appellant/Society before the learned single Judge that the appellant/Society ought to have been entrusted work with regard to supply of certain Drivers and Labourers in pursuance of Tender Notice dated 21st November 2007 issued by the 1st respondent/Municipal Corporation. No priority was given to the appellant/petitioner for the reason that the tender was not in respect of any ‘work’ or ‘works’, but that was only with regard to supply of certain Drivers and Labourers. 3. The learned single Judge rejected the petition, and, therefore, the appellant/petitioner has approached this Court by way of this appeal. 4. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the provisions of Rule 11 (2) (vi) of the aforesaid Rules, we are also of the view that the contract is to be given with regard to supply of certain Drivers and Labourers and not with regard to any particular work. Rule 11 (2) (vi) reads as under : “Atleast 15% of works in the Municipal Corporation shall be reserved for entrustment to the Co- operative Societies and the individuals who happen to be unemployed and retrenched Engineers belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Waddera Communities”. 5. Upon perusal of this Rule, we are also of the view that the priority is to be given only when some work is to be entrusted by the 1st respondent/ Municipal Corporation. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that services of 178 Drivers and 366 Labourers are to be provided. In that case, it cannot be said that contract for work is to be entrusted, and, therefore, in our opinion, the appellant/petitioner has no right in pursuance of the aforesaid Rule. The petition has been rightly rejected by the learned single Judge. 6. For the aforestated reason, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 4th July 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr To 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Transport Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Jail Garden, Chaderghat, Near Malakpet Railway Station, Hyderabad.