IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4850 of 2009 Between: APSPDCL DIS.COM, Electrical Contracts Welfare Association, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Energy), A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.4850 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, which is an Association of Electrical Contractors, called in question the action of respondent No.2 in extending the last date for receiving tenders from 04-03-2009 to 07-03-2009 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri S. Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 3. Respondent No.2 issued a notification calling for sealed tenders for carrying out operation and maintenance work including watch and ward in 97 sub-stations in the Operation Circle of A.P. Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited (APSPDCL). In the said notification, the last date for receipt of tenders was stipulated as 05-03-2009 at 13.00 hours. Through a letter dated 05-03-2009, addressed by respondent No.2 to all the contractors, it is informed that an amendment was made to the tender, as per which, the time and date of tender schedule i.e. the receipt and opening of sealed tenders have been altered. It is indicated therein that the last date for issue of tender schedule will be up to 16.00 hours on 07-03-2009, the last date of receipt of sealed tenders will be 09-03-2009 and opening of sealed tenders will be on the same day at 15.00 hours. 4. In the writ petition, filed by the petitioner-Association, it is alleged that this action of respondent No.2 was intended only to help one company by name M/s. American Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. In support of this plea, it was stated that respondent No.2 entrusted 10 works on nomination basis to the said company without calling for tenders and that in order to favour the said company, the last dates for issue of tender schedule and their receipt have been extended. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is, inter alia, averred that the M/s. American Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad, made a representation on 04-03-2009 stating that they have purchased 20 Nos. of tender schedules and that they were forcibly taken away by other contractors, on account of which, they could not file their tenders. It is further stated that an enquiry, held into the said representation, revealed that there was truth in the said claim of the said company, and that on the matter being appraised to the Chairman and Managing Director of APCPDCL, and on his oral instructions, the last date for issue of the tenders was extended up to 07-03-2009 and the date of opening of tender was fixed as 09-03- 2009. Respondent No.2 denied the allegation that he entrusted the works on nomination basis to the said M/s. American Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad, only to favour them. He explained that some of the contractors manning and operating 33/11 KV sub- stations failed to pay wages to their labour, their contracts were terminated and that as the left over contract periods were only two or three months, the work was allotted to five contractors on nomination basis to meet the exigencies. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner failed to make out a case of either mala fides or violation of any of its legal rights. The petitioner has not impleaded M/s. American Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad, against which allegations are made. No material is placed by the petitioner to substantiate the allegation that the action of respondent No.2 in extending time is mala fide. 7. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 is the competent authority to extend time depending upon the exigencies. On being satisfied that the tenders intended to be filed by one of the tenderers viz., M/s. American Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad, were snatched away, the time schedule was altered by respondent No.2 under due intimation to all the tenderers. This action of respondent No.2 had only resulted in allowing an intending tenderer to participate in the tender process. Such an action would only sub-serve public interest inasmuch as that would increase the competition and prevent monopoly by the contractors who may have developed vested interest and been getting the contracts to the exclusion of others. 8. Therefore, I do not find any arbitrariness or illegality in respondent No.2 extending time for receipt of tenders by two days and the petitioner failed to show that by such action, either any of its rights or interests are affected. As the tender process being competitive, the petitioner cannot have any grievance, if they are to face competition from another tenderer, who was stated to have been prevented on account of highhanded action of some of the tenderers, from filing the tenders, within the originally stipulated time. 9. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is wholly devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 10. As a sequel to the dismissal of writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.6360 of 2009 is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. _______________________ Date: 09-06-2009 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J KVR