IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10865 of 2005 Between: S. Ramu Naidu, s/o Late Atchaiah Naidu, Hindu, Contractor, D.No. 45-35-3, Akkayyapalem, Sangam Office, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam - 2. 2 The District Educational Officer, Vuda Building, 6th Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam - 3. 3 S.A.V. Satyanarayana, Prop: Bhaskara Transports, D.No. 2-7-1, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not accepting the petitioner tender schedule forms submitted on 28-4-2005 within time and allotting work order to single tender ie., 3rd respondent on 4-5-2005 published to tender Advertisement dt. 17-4-2005 published in Eenadu Telugu Daily opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence declare the same is illegal, arbitrary and capricious and to call for retenders and to pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: The subject matter of the writ petition relates to calling for tenders for lifting of N.T.books from District Government Text Book Sales Office, Vadlapudi and Zilla Parishad High School, Aganampudi to all the mandals in the District for the academic year 2004-05. It is stated that the petitioner was existing contractor for the year 2003- 04 and prior to several years and without receiving his tender, only single tender was received and when the respondents 1 and 2 were proceeding to accept his tender, the petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the said action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not accepting his tender, and to direct them not to allot any work to the single tenderer i.e. third respondent. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 03.05.2005 granted interim stay of issuing work order to the 3rd respondent till 10.05.2005 and the same was extended till 06.06.2005. As the academic year itself is over, the writ petition has become infructuous. But, however, it is stated in the counter that certain amount is due to the petitioner and the same will be paid to him soon after the budget is received. Therefore, if any amount is due to the petitioner by the respondents, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for recovery of the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:02.05.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{AVLR}