HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.30755 OF 2011 Dt: 27-12-2011 Between P.Roop Kumar …Petitioner AND Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.30755 OF 2011 ORDER: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR) There are two prayers in the writ petition. The first prayer is for a declaration that the tender notice dated 02.11.2011 issued by respondent No.2 is illegal, null and void. The second prayer is for a detailed enquiry in the execution of the works in Nellore Municipal Corporation pursuant to the tender notice dated 02.11.2011. 2. In so far as the first prayer is concerned, the writ petition was filed on 18.11.2011. When the matter was listed before us on 28.11.2011 we had asked learned counsel for the petitioner to place on record the details of the tender notice since what was placed before us was only the e-procurement document which did not give any details about the terms and conditions of the tender. 3. When the matter was again taken up on 12.12.2011 the documents were not filed and there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The matter was then adjourned to 06.02.2012. But on 14.12.2011 a mention was made by learned counsel for the petitioner that hearing of the case may be advanced and that is how the matter is listed before us today. 4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner informs us that it is not possible to get the details of the tender notice other than what has already been placed on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the work in question, i.e., laying of C.C. road from mini bypass road to NH-5 via children’s park was initially awarded to respondent No.5 and he was required to complete the work within a year, i.e., some time in April/May, 2011. Respondent No.5 abandoned the work midway and according to the petitioner, even though he had completed only 40% of the work, he was paid more than 40% of the amount of the contract. It is submitted that there is a wastage of public money and therefore some enquiry should be conducted into this matter. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present tender notice was issued on 02.11.2011 and there is no reason why that tender notice should have been issued without taking any action against respondent No.5. 6. Respondent No.2 has since filed his counter affidavit in which it is submitted that so far as the tender notice dated 02.11.2011 is concerned that has fructified into a contract and the work has now been awarded to M/s.Bhavani Constructions, Nellore. 7. The writ petition has not been amended to implead M/s.Bhavani Constructions as a party. No adverse order can be passed against M/s.Bhavani Constructions in this situation. 8. In so far as the wastage of public money by making payments to respondent No.5 is concerned, respondent No.2 has not specifically adverted to this issue except to say that payments have been made to respondent No.5. 9. Under these circumstances, the prayer made by the petitioner for setting aside the tender notice dated 02.11.2011 cannot be granted in the absence of M/s.Bhavani Constructions being made a party. We have also not been told anything about why the tender notice should be quashed except to say that public money has been wasted by making some over payments to respondent No.5. That is unfortunately not the issue before us. We may also note that there is no prayer made for any enquiry into the payments made to respondent No.5. 10. In so far as the second prayer made by the petitioner is concerned, namely, for enquiry into the execution of the works of the tender notice dated 02.11.2011, nothing has been pointed out to us that there has been any misfeasance or malfeasance in the execution of the work pursuant to the tender notice dated 02.11.2011. In fact, the work is still going on and that has not yet been completed and there is nothing to suggest that any over payments have been made pursuant to the tender notice dated 02.11.2011. 11. Under the circumstances, we find no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous application is also disposed of. ( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ ) ( SANJAY KUMAR, J ) Dt: 27.12.2011. VGSR/TNB