1 APHC010163972023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8461/2023 Between: Bandla Madhu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that, inspite of representations submitted by the petitioner dated 09.11.2017 & 29.03.2023, the respondents are not relaxing the requirements of the work experience certificate for the works upto Rs.1000 Lakhs. 2 2. Heard Sri G.Arun Showri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Sateesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, after reorganization of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh into two segments i.e., Telangana and Andhra States, the Government of Telangana State issued G.O.Ms.66 Irrigation & CAD (Reforms) Department dated 20.04.2015 amending G.O.Ms.No.94 Irrigation and CAD (PW – COD) Department dated 01.07.2003, G.O.Ms.No.130, I & CD (PW:REFORMS) Department dated 22.05.2007, G.O.Ms.No.142 I & CAD (Reforms) Department dated 20.12.2004, G.O.Ms.No.14 I & CAD (Reforms) Department dated 31.01.2015 (Govt. of Telangana) respectively in order to bring in the monetary limits and the eligibility criteria to meet the present day needs and to increase competitiveness by pooling in more contractors. He further submitted that the said G.O.No.66 dated 20.04.2015 include the relaxation of qualification criteria for the works costing Rs.1000 Lakhs (ECV) and below for civil works in all State/central Departments, State/Central Government undertakings/public sector undertaking/corporations. (b) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, based on the modifications brought in by the Government of Telangana, few specific changes were brought in by the Government of A.P. only for the Water Resources Department in calculation of Bid capacity in tenders, depriving the right of contractors in other departments to file tenders as they are not eligible 3 due to un-amended G.O.Ms.No.94 Irrigation and CAD (PW – COD) Department dated 01.07.2003. He further submitted that, in that regard, the petitioner had made a representation on 09.11.2017 to the Engineer-in-Chief, RWS & S Department, A.P. requesting to extend, the existing monetary limit of Rs.50.00 Lakhs upto Rs.300 Lakhs without experience certificate, solvency and credit facility etc., but the respondent authority has not considered the same. (c) He further submitted that, the Government of A.P has issued new tender vide ID.No.601859 under the name “O&M of CPWS scheme to Medarametla and other habitations of Prakasam District, with Estimated cost of Rs.140.00 Lakhs” by adopting the eligibility criteria as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.94 Irrigation and CAD (PW – COD) Department dated 01.07.2003 and by virtue of the same, the petitioner is deprived of his right to file tender in the said works. He further submitted that, the petitioner also made a representation dated 29.03.2023 to the respondent authorities to accept his price bid in the subject tender, but without considering the same, the authorities are proceeding with the tender process. As such filed the present writ petition and accordingly prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation contended that the subject tender vide ID.No.601859 was issued on 09.03.2023 wherein the petitioner has participated and became unsuccessful. He further submitted that, if at all the petitioner wants to question the 4 G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 01.07.2003, he can question before issuing the tender notification but he has questioned only after noticing that he was unsuccessful in the subject tender. He further submitted that, moreover, the tenders were opened and the works were also allotted to the successful bidders, as such the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. 6. As could be culled out from the facts and submissions made in this case, the petitioner is seeking amendment to G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 01.07.2003 and thereby sought relaxation of eligibility criteria to Rs.1000 Lakhs instead of Rs.50 Lakhs. The said G.O. is of the year 2003 and the petitioner made a representation on 09.11.2017 seeking amendment to the same. No reasons are forthcoming as to why the petitioner has not taken any steps against the said G.O till the year 2017. Moreover, the petitioner has not refuted the contention that he was unsuccessful in the tender which was finalized on 03.04.2023 and admittedly the present writ petition is filed on the very same day. In view of the same, this Court finds justification in the contention made by the respondents that only after noticing that he was unsuccessful in the subject tender, the present writ petition is filed seeking amendment to the Governmental order. Even otherwise, it was stated by the respondents that the tenders were opened and the works were also allotted to the successful 5 bidders. In view of the same, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS