APHC010418602024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21527/2024 Between: 1. RAISE OPERATIONS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SL NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. CHINTALAPUDI, CHINTALAPUDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, PRIME HILL CREST, VADDESWARAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE ELURU MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. THE COMMISSIONER, VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH, 520013. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in considering his representation dated 08.01.2024 seeking action for allotting the tender works for providing ceiling and painting to the old council hall in the Municipal Office and electrification works on the first floor of the Municipal Office. 2. It is submitted that the tender I.D. Nos. 752909 and 752904 were floated by the 4th respondent; however, to facilitate the award of the tenders to the contractors with whom the respondent No.3 had some understanding, the tenders were cancelled. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 08.08.2024 seeking enquiry and allotment of tenders to the petitioner. 3. The counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent submits that the tenders which were called were subsequently cancelled as the budget for the tenders was unavailable. 4. It is submitted that the tenders filed by the bidders were not even opened and the executive authority cancelled the tenders. It is also submitted that the 4th respondent took up the cancellation of bulk execution of works and that the feasibility of procuring and executing the works was again reassessed. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot challenge the decision of the 4th respondent in cancelling the tenders and that the petitioner would be entitled to participate in the fresh tender, if any, issued by the 4th respondent. 4 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent. 6. The tenders which are the subject of the writ petition were cancelled, and it is also pertinent to note that the bid of the petitioner was also not opened along with other bidders on account of the decision taken by the 4th respondent. As the tenders were also cancelled, as such further orders cannot be issued in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 04.09.2025 PNS 5