HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9157 of 2010 26th April 2010 Between: M/s. Poojitha Engineering Works Gangavaram, Visakhapatnam rep. by its Managing Directo, Ummadi Somulu … PETITIONER(S) and The Bheemunipatnam Municipal Council rep. by its Commissioner, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9157 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner’s grievance, in this Writ Petition, is that despite their participating in the tender process they were not awarded the sanitation/scavenging work and instead the work was awarded in favour of the fourth respondent, a society consisting of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. G.O.Ms.Nos.581 MA dated 06.11.1996 and G.O.Ms.No.30 MA dated 18.01.2000 require the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations to entrust a portion of the sanitation work to societies formed by Sanitary Workers Unions/DWCUA groups, societies whose members belong to SC/ST categories etc., without their being required to participate in the tender process. Sri B. Sasibhushan Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner’s bid was rejected without assigning any reason. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not entitled for preference in award of sanitation work as he does not belong to any of the categories which are entitled for preference. As members of the fourth respondent society belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, they are entitled to be provided a portion of the sanitation work under the aforesaid G.Os. The very fact that the aforesaid G.Os. confer on the societies, consisting of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, preference in awarding sanitation work is sufficient reason for award of work in their favour. The Corporation, in adhering the aforesaid G.Os, cannot be said to have acted illegally. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the action of the respondents in awarding the sanitation works to the fourth respondent. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 26th April 2010 CVRK/asp