THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19784 of 2009 Dated 06th April, 2011 Between: E.Krishna Murthy Naidu …Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu Counsel for respondents: GP for Forests The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Forests. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.57642/2008-33, dated 01.08.2009, of respondent No.1, whereby he has cancelled his earlier proceedings in Rc.No.57642/2008-J3, dated 27.05.2009. In response to the tender notification issued by the respondents for construction of enclosures for certain animals in the S.V.Zoological Park, Triupathi, Chittoor District, the petitioner has filed his tenders for construction of enclosures for elephants and black panther. As the petitioner’s tenders were found to be the lowest, proceedings, dated 27.05.2009, were issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. (shown as respondent No.1). Accordingly, a direction was given in the said proceedings to respondent No.2 to enter into an agreement with the petitioner. However, by the impugned proceedings, respondent No.1 cancelled the said proceedings on the sole ground that under G.O.Ms.No.133, Irrigation & CAD (PW.REFORMS) Department, dated 20.11.2004, the tender premium shall not exceed 5% over the estimated rates. At the hearing, the principal submission of Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the tenders filed by the petitioner are governed by G.O.Ms.No.2, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.III) Department, dated 07.01.2004, which permits tender premium upto 15% over the estimated rates. His further submission is that G.O.Ms.No.133, dated 20.11.2004, pertains to the works undertaken by the Irrigation and Command Area Development Department and hence, it has no application to the works undertaken by the Forest Department. The learned Government Pleader for Forests placed reliance on the Manual of Guidelines and Accounting Procedure on Works Relating to A.P.State Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (for short ‘the Manual’) and submitted that Clause 4.4.7 thereof stipulates that for all the works, ceiling of tender premium is 5% in terms of G.O.Ms.No.133, dated 20.11.2004. It is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader that the works, in respect of which, the tenders have been called for, are governed by G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 07.01.2004. This aspect is further evident from the very proceedings, dated 27.05.2009, of respondent No.1, wherein it is stated as under: “Hence as per the powers vested with the Prl.Chief Conservator of Forests as per section 95(6)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Forests Dept., Code as amended in G.O.Ms.No.2, EFS&T (For.III) Dept., dt.07.01.2004, the excess tender with 9.45% excess, over the estimated amount of Rs.51.58 lakhs, of Sri E.Krishna Murthy Naidu, R/o.Rayavaripalli (V) Chittoor District, is hereby accepted.” From the above passage contained in the proceedings, dated 27.05.2009, it is clearly evident that respondent No.1 has followed G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 07.01.2004, and not G.O.Ms.No.133. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 07.01.2004, has been either amended or superseded. On the contrary, a perusal of G.O.Ms.No.133 would show that it was issued as an amendment to G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003, which governs the works relating to the Irrigation and Command Area Development Department. In my opinion, when G.O.Ms.No.2 governing the works relating to the Forest Department is in force, another G.O., governing the works of a different Department cannot be adopted to deny contract to the petitioner. As regards the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the respondents have adopted G.O.Ms.No.133, I have not felt convinced by the same because the Manual, which contains Clause 4.4.7 referred to above, was issued in respect of the works relating to the A.P.State Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the works in question fall under the said category. At any rate, those guidelines were issued in the year 2010, much subsequent to the commencement and conclusion of tender process relating to the two works in question. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained in law and the same are accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to entrust the works to the petitioner in pursuance of the proceedings, dated 27.05.2009, issued by respondent No.1. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 18.09.2009, granted by this Court shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.25799 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.3518 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th April, 2011 VGB