HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10436 of 2008 Dated: 18-01-2010 Between: S. Ram Reddy. … Petitioner And The Engineer-in-Chief (R & B), Errumanzil, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10436 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the Proceedings, dated 30.08.2007, issued by respondent No.1 in Letter No.660/TA1/RE2/2007. 2. The petitioner made an application for registration as Class-I Contractor, vide application, dated 18th January 2007. Earlier, orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003, specifying the guidelines with regard to experience, solvency, etc., for registration as Class-I Contractors, but during the pendency of the application filed by the petitioner, the said norms were modified vide G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 22.05.2007. As per the revised norms, petitioner has to produce solvency certificate for Rs.1 Crore in the prescribed format issued by any of the Scheduled Banks, apart from experience certificate for group works worth Rs.100 lakhs, with a single work worth Rs.50 lakhs in any one year in the past five years. 3. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that as much as he has made application for registration as Class-I Contractor prior to modification of norms vide G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 22.05.2007, his application is to be considered as per the earlier norms, which were in force on the date of making his application. 4. The said contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that while modifying the guidelines vide G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 22.05.2007, the modified guidelines were extended not only to the new applicants, but also to the existing Contractors whenever they apply for re- registration. Merely because the application of the petitioner was prior to the issuance of orders by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.130, dated 22.05.2007, he cannot seek for registration basing on the norms, which were not in force on the date of passing of orders. Further, it is also to be noted that having regard to the need and quality of the Contractors and the volume of work, it is always open for the respondents to modify the guidelines to suit the requirements for execution of various categories of works. 5. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition so as to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh application for registration as Class-I Contractor, by complying with the requirements as per the guidelines, which are in force now. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th January 2010 ajr