THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR DATED: 19-05-2010 WRIT APPEAL No. 377 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Suresh and Ramesh Enterprises, rep., by its Proprietor M.P Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Tataiah, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Contractor, Church Compound, near Clock Tower, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and another ..... APPELLANTS AND The Superintendent Engineer (Operation) APCPDCL, near Bus Stand, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and two others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 377 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Sri B. Seshasayana Reddy, J) This writ appeal is directed against the interim order dated 30- 04-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 9584 of 2010. The appellants are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 9584 of 2010. They filed the writ petition seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in finalizing the tender Notice No.7/2009-2010 on turnover basis without considering the experience in contract works and not on eligibility as per the terms and conditions of the tender as arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents herein to invite the fresh tenders in the interest of justice and grant such other relief and reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The learned single Judge passed the following interim order: “Pending further orders, the respondents are directed to finalize the tender process strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the A.P Central Power Distribution Company Limited.” The said order is assailed in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the material brought on record. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the respondents have not considered the representation dated 08-04-2010 and proceeded with the finalisation of the tenders. As could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the principal grievance of the appellants is that the respondents are going to finalise the tenders on the basis of turnover which is not mentioned in the terms and conditions of the tender. The learned single Judge having considered the material brought on record proceeded to issue direction to the respondents to finalise the tender process strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited. Such is the direction, we do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J 19-05-2010 ks