APHC010019262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 48 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-3 [3552] Sri Siddhartha Consultancy ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. N. Aswartha Narayana Advocates for Respondents : GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Mr. A. V. Badra Naga Seshayya, and Mr. S. V. S. S. Sivaram, Standing Counsel for VMC CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 2nd February 2026 P C : The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order impugned, dated 18.12.2025, passed in W.P.No.28992 of 2025. The writ petition was dismissed by virtue of the judgment and order impugned and hence the present Writ Appeal by the petitioner. 2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner participated in a bidding process for appointment of Third Party Quality Control Agency for all engineering works in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (in short, ‘the VMC’). 2 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.48 of 2026 The grievance of the petitioner was that the private respondent No.4 herein did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the bid document inasmuch as it did not have the mandatory five years experience in quality control services. The respondent No.4, having submitted its bid, was sought to clarify certain issues including the issue with regard to experience of five years. This was done vide communication, dated 02.07.2025, which was responded to by the respondent No.4, who places the requisite experience certificates for perusal of the concerned committee. 3. Based upon the clarifications so obtained, the official respondents appointed the respondent No.4 as an agency for quality control for engineering works in the VMC. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to bring home the point that the respondent No.4 could not have been declared successful inasmuch as the firm of the said respondent was registered only on 20.11.2020 with the Government, therefore, in no circumstance could it claim that it possessed the requisite five years experience. 5. In our view, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant does not convince us inasmuch as the requirement of registration which was one of the conditions is totally different from the requirement of experience which was required of a candidate to be declared successful. In this case, while it is true that the registration of respondent No.4 had been affected in the year, 2020, yet there was enough material placed on record to the satisfaction 3 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.48 of 2026 of the official respondents to show that it had the requisite five years experience in the field. 6. It is not the case of the appellant that the experience certificates being relied upon by the respondent No.4 were in any manner fabricated or obtained for purposes of claiming such an experience. If that be so, then the decision of the official respondents in allotting the contract to the private respondent No.4 cannot be interfered with. Although some other issues were sought to be raised by the petitioner with regard to the man power requirement, which was sought of an eligible candidate, which, according to the petitioner, the successful tenderer did not possess, yet the said issue having not been raised either in the writ petition or at the time of argument before the learned single Judge, we find no reason to go into those issues at this stage. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the present Writ Appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J kbs 4 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.48 of 2026 66 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN W.A.No.48 of 2026 Dt: 02.02.2026 kbs 5 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.48 of 2026