HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7792 OF 2010 ORDER: Aggrieved by the tender notification dated 11.03.2010 inviting tenders, from different categories, for sanitation maintenance and garbage removal in the Tirupati Municipal Corporation, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner is the Vice-President of the Scheduled Caste Mutually Aided Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited. They would contend that the respondents had issued a tender inviting applications from eligible persons, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 18.01.2000, whereunder the Municipalities/Municipal Corporations were required to entrust a portion of the sanitation work to Societies formed by Sanitary Workers Unions without participating in the tender process with a view to improve the efficiency in sanitation with the other modalities indicated in G.O.Ms.No.581 dated 06.11.1996. The petitioner’s grievance, in short, is that, instead of allotting the work without inviting tenders, the respondent-Municipal Corporation had invited tenders to Units A and B of Division No.7 which was reserved in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for Tirupati Municipal Corporation, would draw attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 29.03.2010 whereunder the work was entrusted to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by adopting a lottery dip system. While the petitioner’s submission, that the respondent- Corporation ought not to have resorted to the tender process as G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 18.01.2000 required works to be allotted without tenders being invited, cannot be said to be without merit, the fact remains that, even if the tender route ought not to be adhered to by the Municipal Corporation, they are nonetheless required to adopt a reasonable method of selecting one among the various societies, formed by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which had competed for allotment of the work. In the light of the prohibition for invitation of tenders under G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 18.01.2000, the action of the respondent-Corporation in adopting the system of lottery dip cannot be faulted. Sri J.Lokesh Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the work had been allotted to a person who had not obtained the licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and had not got himself registered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Employees State Insurance Act. The person, to whom the work in question has been allotted, is not even made a party- respondent in this writ petition. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if they so choose, to challenge the allotment of work to persons who do not possess the licences prescribed under law by way of separate writ proceedings, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:08.04.2010 Usd