IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1994 of 2008 Between: Bellampalli Region Coal Tippers Owners Welfare Society, Regd. No. 441/2007, H.No. 28-3-90, Caltex Area, Bellampalli 504 251, District Adilabad, AP Rep by its Secretary, Ega Venkata Swamy S/o. Narsaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ : H.No. 19-2-28, Ashoknagar, Bellampalli Village, Adilabad Distrist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Singareni Bhavan, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director 2 The Chief General Manager (Purchase), The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem, Khammam District - 507 101 3 Bonthala Ramu, S/o. Venkateswaralu, R/o. Deepaknagar, Mandamarri Village and mandal, Adilabad 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 any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in considering the Tender filed by the 3rd respondent herein along with the other eligible Tenderers including the petitioner society and calling the 3rd respondent for negotiations instead of rejecting the same even though he is not even qualified, eligible and entitled to submit the tender in response to the Tender enquiry vide NO. CRP/CMC/CT/Enq/166 dated 27-6-2007 floated by the 2nd respondent for transporation of caol from (1) Dorli Open Cast Projet -1 to Ramakrishnapur Coal Handling Plant (main linkage) and Dorli Open Cast Project-1 to Shantikhani Coal Handland plant (main linkage) as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the tenders of the eligible and qualified tenderers who filed tenders and to netotiate with them and award the contract to them in respect of the above said contract and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed by Bellampalli Region Coal Tippers Owners Welfare Society represented by its Secretary Ega Venkata Swamy with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent-Chief General Manager (Purchase), Singareni Colleries Company Limited in considering the tender filed by Bonthala Ramu is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Ega Venkata Swamy has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 2nd respondent called for tenders for transportation of coal from Dorli Open Cast Project-1 to Ramakrishnapur coal Handling Plant (main linkage) and Dorli Open Cast Project-1 to Shantikhani Coal Handling plant (main linkage) on weight basis. The petitioner and 3rd respondent participated in the tender. The petitioner became L2 tenderer and whereas 3rd respondent became L.1 tenderer. According to the petitioner, 3rd respondent is not qualified to submit tender. 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that 3rd respondent is qualified to participate in the tender and he became the lowest tenderer and therefore he is entitled for 70 percent of the work and whereas the petitioner is entitled to 30 percent of the work being the next lowest tenderer. Counter affidavit of 1st and 2nd respondents, in brief, is that the petitioner insisted for allotment of 100 percent of the work though he is not the lowest tenderer. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that inspite of communication being sent to the petitioner he did not attend for negotiations. When this writ petition came up for admission with the consent of the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 3rd respondent is not having the qualifications prescribed in the tender notification issued by 2nd respondent and therefore the tender submitted by 3rd respondent is liable to be rejected and in which case the question of inviting 3rd respondent for negotiations does not arise. The allegation of 3rd respondent being ineligible to participate in the tender is denied by 1st and 2nd respondents and also 3rd respondent himself. 1st and 2nd respondents asserted in the counter affidavit that 3rd respondent is having all the necessary qualifications to participate in the tender. Indisputably the petitioner is L2 tenderer and whereas 3rd respondent is L1 tenderer. As per the procedure, L1 tenderer is to be entrusted with 70 percent of the work and whereas L2 tenderer is to be entrusted with 30 percent of the work. The letter addressed by the petitioner, which has been placed on record, indicates that the petitioner insisted for allotment of 100 percent work to him. 1st and 2nd respondents apparently did not agree for it. Therefore the petitioner chose to approach this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 1st and 2nd respondents specifically asserted that 3rd respondent does not suffer from any disqualification in participating the tender. There is no proof placed on record by the petitioner that 3rd respondent is disqualified to participate in the tender. Such is the situation, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. 26th June, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.1994 OF 2008 26TH JUNE 2008.