IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14882 of 2008 Between: M/s.MIR CONSTRUCTIONS, rep.by its Proprietor Mohd.Inayat Ur Rahman, office at 639,MIG, BHEL,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of AP., rep.by its Secretary,Department of Roads & Buildings, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Engineer in Chief Department of Roads & Buildings (Administration and NH), Erramanzil, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the Application of the petitioner dated 23.11.2006 to register as Class I Contractor under Civil contracts as illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and consequently direct the respondents to register the ﬁrm of the petitioner as class I contractors in civil works are concern. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.R.KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering application dated 23.11.2006 to register the ﬁrm as Class-1 contractor under Civil Contracts. Petitioner is a ﬁrm represented by its proprietor. It is his case that he made an application to the 2nd respondent – Engineer in Chief, Department of Roads and Buildings, Hyderabad seeking registration of the ﬁrm as Class-1 contractor on 23.11.2006 along with all necessary documents as required under G.O.Ms.No.8 & 94 of 2003 and on 1.9.2007 he was also asked by the authorities to submit latest income tax returns and a DD for Rs.5,700/- and also a Solvency Certiﬁcate in original for Rs.1.00 crore in the prescribed proforma issued by a Scheduled Bank. In the process of considering his application, a letter was also issued to the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 29.7.2007 seeking clariﬁcation as to whether the Cantonment Board is a Government Body or a private body to which it was replied that it is a Central Government Municipal Body and that the civil works which were executed by the petitioner’s ﬁrm can be taken into consideration for registration as Class 1 Contractor in civil contract. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he submitted the application along with all necessary requisites way back on 23.11.2006 as per the rules and guidelines prevailing over at that point of time, the respondents without properly responding on his application, delayed the process and now issued the impugned proceedings rejecting his application on the ground that he failed to produce a DD for Rs.6,000/- and a Solvency Certiﬁcate for Rs.1.00 crore and latest SARAL copy as directed by them by letter dated 12.7.2007. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed. On 11.7.2008, this Court ordered notice before admission and directed the Government Pleader for Transport and Roads and Buildings to ﬁle counter. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in a similar case this Court in W.P.No.28526 of 2007 considering G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 22.5.2007 basing on which the case of the petitioner herein was rejected held that the very fact that G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 22.5.2007 was issued having felt that norms for registration of contractors ﬁxed in G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 1.7.2003 needed revision, would disentitle the petitioner to contend that his application is required to be considered in the light of the pre-existing conditions contained in G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 1.7.2003 and acceptance of such contention would render the very purpose of modifying the conditions nugatory. In the light of the above judgment of this Court in W.P.No.28256 of 2007 dated 9.4.2008, the petitioner herein is not entitled for the relief as prayed for and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.18.9.2008 msv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The State of AP., rep.by its Secretary,Department of Roads & Buildings, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Engineer in Chief Department of Roads & Buildings (Administration and NH), Erramanzil, Hyderabad 3 2CCs to GP for Transport, Roads & Building, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad 4 2CD copies