THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16366 of 2011 Date: 30.09.2011 Between: M/s. Param Power Control System, Adilabad District. … Petitioners And Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Ltd., Warangal District and 3 others. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16366 of 2011 ORDER: The 2nd respondent Superintending Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Limited issued a tender notice dated 07.04.2011 for manning and maintenance of 33/11 KV substations of Boraj and Sathnala in Adilabad Division for the year 2011-2012. In response to the said tender notice, the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent had submitted their tenders and both of them had quoted the same price. Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent herein was awarded the work by letter dated 28.05.2011 accepting the rate quoted by him. Aggrieved by the said action of the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was awarded the said contract work of manning and maintaining the sub-stations at Boraj and Sathnala for the year 2010-2011. Admittedly, he had executed the work during the entire contract period for the year 2010-2011. According to the petitioner he is a permanent resident of Adilabad and he is drawing his pension from Adilabad center and he is also operating his Bank accounts in Adilabad. In the circumstances, the petitioner contends that there is no justifiable reason for not awarding the same contract to him for the year 2011-2012. While alleging that the petitioner’s tender was rejected on an erroneous ground that he was a non-local, it is contended that having regard to the admitted fact that he was awarded the contract for the previous year, there is no reason to treat him as non-local for the current year 2011-2012 and therefore the impugned action of the respondents in ignoring the petitioner’s tender and awarding the contract to the 4th respondent is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner had submitted his tender schedule along with “A” grade electrical license, NPDCL registration copy and EPF certificate. However, no single document was enclosed to show that the petitioner was residing at Adilabad. Since as per the terms and conditions of the tender, the priority shall be given to the eligible local contractor, the work was rightly awarded to the 4th respondent who is a native of Adilabad District. It is also stated that so far as the year 2010-2011, the petitioner was awarded the contract of manning and maintenance since there were few local contractors having EPF registration at that time. In fact, the other non-local contractors who were awarded work during the previous years were not considered for the present year and the details of those 9 contractors have been furnished in the counter affidavit. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent on the same lines. It is also stated that pursuant to the authorization letter dated 28.05.2011 he had acquired all the material to commence the work within the stipulated period and because of the interim order of status quo granted by this Court, he was unable to commence the work. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material placed before this Court shows that the tender notice contained a specific clause that the priority shall be given to the eligible “local contractor” for the work. It is true that the petitioner claims that he is a permanent resident of Adilabad and it is also not in dispute that for the previous year, he was awarded the same work. However, according to the respondents 1 to 3 the petitioner could not produce any material to show that he is a local contractor. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that clause 5 of the tender notice specified the documents to be produced by the tenderer along with his tender and that all the certificates so produced by the writ petitioner revealed that he was not a local contractor. It In the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in giving priority to the 4th respondent, a local contractor, cannot be found fault with. At any rate, having participated in the tender without raising any objection with regard to the condition that priority would be given to the eligible local contractor, the petitioner cannot now contend that the work awarded to the 4th respondent in terms of the above said condition is arbitrary and illegal. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 30.09.2011 Note: Issue C.C. in 3 days. B/o KLP