IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.26596 and 29101 of 2011 WP.No.26596 of 2011: BETWEEN Malli Venkateswarlu. ... PETITIONER AND The South Central Railway, Guntakal and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. G. VIVEKANAND Counsel for the Respondent: MR. T.S. VENKATARAMANA S.C. for RAILWAYS WP.No.29101 of 2011: BETWEEN A. Venkateswara Rao. ... PETITIONER AND The South Central Railway, Secunderbad and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P. VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent: MR. T.S. VENKATARAMANA S.C. for RAILWAYS The Court made the following order: COMMON ORDER: WP.No.26596 of 2011 is filed by the petitioner - highest bidder in response to the tender notification of the respondent dated 03.06.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that his offer is much higher than that of the second respondent but the petitioner was not being considered and second respondent was preferred on the ground that the petitioner did not satisfy the requisite experience. 2. WP.No.29101 of 2011 is filed by the lessee of the Cloak Room Contract, whose term has already expired on 21.05.2011. He has approached this Court by the present writ petition on 29.10.2011 questioning the notification issued by the respondents as illegal on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to be granted renewal in terms of clause 19(b) of his contract dated 24.06.2008. Petitioner states that he had made an application for grant of renewal on 24.10.2011 and that no orders are being passed on the said representation. 3. While these two writ petitions are coming up for hearing together, the learned standing counsel has placed before this court the written instructions of the respondents addressed to him wherein the respondents state that so far as the tender called for, which is subject matter of WP.No.26596 of 2011, referred to above, the tender committee has examined the case in the light of the grievance of the petitioner therein and they have taken a decision for cancellation of the entire tender process and to notify fresh tenders and also to call for quotations till finalization of fresh tenders. The said recommendation of tender committee has been accepted by the competent authority on 18.10.2011 and in that view of the matter; the process of calling for fresh tenders is underway. 4. So far as the grievance of the petitioner in WP.No.29101 of 2011 is concerned, it is pointed out that after the petitioner’s term expired in May itself, he has filed the application for seeking renewal only on 24.10.2011 i.e. five months after the expiry of the term and that too after the tender process, which was subject matter of WP.No.26596 of 2011 was initiated and was at the final stage. Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, states that the application of the petitioner for seeking renewal was, therefore, rejected and in view of the decision to call for fresh tenders, the grievance of the petitioner in WP.No.29101 of 2011 does not survive. 5. In due consideration of the rival contentions, since the tenders earlier called for, which are subject matter of WP.No.26596 of 2011, are withdrawn and cancelled and as the respondents have decided to go for fresh tenders, it cannot be said that any legal rights of the petitioner in this writ petition are infringed. He is, however, at liberty to participate in the fresh tenders as and when they are called for. So far as the petitioner in WP.No.29101 of 2011 is concerned, since the he has not availed the consideration of his request for renewal either before the expiry or immediately after the expiry of his term, the rejection of his request by the respondent authority is clearly justified, as the request of the petitioner itself was highly belated. However, since fresh tenders are being called for, he is also at liberty to participate in the said tenders. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, as stated by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, the respondent authority shall expeditiously take up and complete the process of calling for and finalization of fresh tenders, preferably within a period of three (3) months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 30, 2011 DSK