IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13648 of 2008 Between: Nallu Devendhar Reddy, S/o. Dhamodhar Reddy, H.No. 1-1-16/2, Old Bazar, Near Bus Stand, Mahaboobnagar, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Excise Commissioner, AP Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Warangal. 3 The Joint Collector, Warangal. 4 The Deputy Commissioner, Excise Department, Warangal. 5 Rajesh, S/o. Not known, Kotha Veedhi, Mahaboobabad (Mandal), Warangal 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 to issue a direction or Writ more particularly which is in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 4th respondent allotting shop No. 56 at Mahaboobabad Mandal, Warangal District to the 5th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, uncontitutional and invoilation of principles of Natural Justice, consequently direct the 4th respondent to cancel the allotment of Shop No. 56, at Mahaboobabad Mandal, Warangal District in favour of the 5th respondent is illegal and also direct the 4th respondent to consider the single tender of the petitioner for allotment of shop No. 56 at the Mahaboobabad Mandal, Warangal District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.JALAKAM.SAMPATH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: Pursuant to the notification by the 2nd respondent bearing Reference No.392/2008/P&F/A3 dated 6.6.2008 issued under the provisions of A.P. Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005, the petitioner applied for a lease of Shop No.56 at Mahaboobabad Mandal, Warangal District. The petitioner asserts that the 5th respondent filed his tender in a sealed cover but lodged it before the 4th respondent instead of Excise Superintendent, who is the specified authority to receive tenders as per the notification. The petitioner alleges that notwithstanding this irregularity in the filing of tenders by the 5th respondent, he was granted a licence depriving the petitioner of the benefits of being the sole tenderer as there were no other tenderers except the petitioner and the 5th respondent, in respect of Shop No. 56. If the 4th respondent had forwarded the tender filed by the petitioner to the Excise Superintendent, who is the competent authority to receive such tenders and lease is granted to the 5th respondent on that basis, though in contravention of the technical specification in the notification issued by the 2nd respondent, no substantial miscarriage of justice or illegality is seen to be committed. There are no merits. The Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Excise. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 27.6.2008 cvm