THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.No.1527 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 18.09.2008, passed by a learned single judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition W.P.No.14882 of 2008. 3. Appellant is the petitioner and respondents are the respondents in the writ petition. 4. The appellant, who is a contractor, has filed an application on 23.11.2006 to the second respondent-Engineer in Chief, Department of Roads and Buildings (Administration and NH), Hyderabad, seeking to consider his case for registering his firm as Class-I contractor under civil contracts in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003; that the second respondent, by his letter, dated 01.09.2007, returned the said application, raising certain objections, requiring the appellant to comply with the same; that the appellant had submitted another application on 29.03.2008, despite which no action had been taken by the respondents and, on the contrary, the said application had been returned for want of certain information; that those deficiencies have been mentioned in the letter, dated 20.05.2008, which is made part of the record and that, in the meanwhile, the Government have issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 22.05.2007, replacing G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003, and incorporated some new conditions, which are to be complied with. 5. From the above, it is clear that though the respondents have sought for certain documents, vide letter, dated 01.09.2007, the appellant, instead of complying with the same, has filed another application, dated 29.03.2008, which again was deferred, by letter, dated 20.05.2008, of the respondents, for want of necessary information. Therefore, it is clear that there are latches on the part of the appellant in complying with the objections raised by the respondents. 6. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 22.05.2007, cannot be given retrospective effect and that since the application of the appellant was filed in the month of November, 2006, it has to be processed only in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003, but not in terms of G.O.Ms.No.130, which was issued subsequently. 7. Inasmuch as the Government felt that the norms for registration of contractors fixed in G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003, require revision and issued G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 22.05.2007, subsequently, the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the application has to be considered only in the light of said G.O.Ms.No.94 cannot be countenanced. 8. For this reason, the similar writ petition W.P.No.28526 of 2007, filed before another learned single judge, was dismissed, by order, dated 09.04.2008, and following the order in the said writ petition, this writ petition was also dismissed. 9. For the foregoing, the Writ Appeal is lack of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________​___ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 AVS/LSK