THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.21089 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the registered Sanitary Contractor of the second respondent-Hospital and claims to have been carrying on sanitary works at the second respondent-Hospital for the last three years, without any blame. While so, he states that pursuant to the tender notification, dated 14.08.2006, issued by the second respondent inviting sealed tenders from the qualified Sanitary Contractors for carrying out sanitary works at the Hospital, he claims to have submitted his application, along with other tenderers, and quoted a sum of Rs.23,53,296/-. That being the lowest tenderer, he was declared as successful bidder. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that instead of awarding contract in his favour being declared as lowest tenderer, respondent Nos.1 and 2 awarded contract in favour of the third respondent on the ground that he did not enroll in the Employees Provident Fund. The petitioner states that in fact the third respondent also did not enroll in the Employees Provident Fund and at the time of submission of the tender application, the petitioner has given undertaking that he will enroll in the Employees Provident Fund. Hence, the present writ petition. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter in the matter denying the allegations in the matter. It is categorically stated that pursuant to the tender notification issued by them, they received four tenders and out of the same, the petitioner and one Kanakadurga Dalitha Municipality Sanitary Labour Contract were disqualified, as they did not enclose the prescribed Employees Provident Fund, Employees State Insurance and Experience Certificates. That out of the remaining two, Harijana Municipal Sanitary Workers Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Mattewada, Warangal was the lowest tenderer and as it has fulfilled all the conditions, the contract was awarded in its favour vide proceedings, dated 06.10.2006, but not to the third respondent, as alleged by the petitioner. In view of the averment made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the contract was awarded in favour of one Harijana Municipal Sanitary Workers Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Mattewada, Warangal, but not in favour of the third respondent, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no subsisting grievance and in view of the same, no further orders are necessary in the writ petition. Accordingly, recording the said submission, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:28.06.2010 VGB