(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the respondents 2 and 3 in issuing Tender-cum-Public Auction Notice in RC.N4-333/2008-E.NO.17167 dated 11/01/2024 calling for Tenders in respect of lease of Shop No.l (HarithaAngadi Shop), Indira Gandhi Municipal Corporation Stadium Complex, Vijayawada for a period of 3 years and in contemplating to allot the same to a person of their choice without proper publication of Tender-cum-Public Auction Notice and without conducting the actual auction on the Schedule date as fixed in the said Notice, to deprive the intending persons to participate in the auction like the petitioner as illegal. arbitrary, irrational, malafide and against the principles of Natural Justice and consequently to set aside the said Auction Notice dated 11/01/2024 and all further proceedings pursuant to the said Notice in respect of the above subject shop in the interest of justice and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Tender-cum-Public Auction Notice in RC.N4-333/2008-E.No.17167 dated 11/01/2024 calling for Tenders in respect of lease of Shop No.1 (HarithaAngadi Shop), Indira Gandhi Municipal Corporation Stadium Complex, Vijayawada, during the pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of justice and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to consider to my implead petition as one of the respondent in main writ petition contested same and pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass

Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to may be pleased to summon the Respondents herein to attend before this Honble Court and to punish them for their willful and deliberate contempt and disobedience in not obeying and non-complying the lawful orders of this Honble Court dated 27-03-2024 passed in W.P No. 2872 of 2024 and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with the requirement of filing Certified copy of the order in W.P. No. 2872 OF 2024 dated 27-03-2024 by this Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravathi in the interest of justice and to pass)

Common Order

1. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent nos. 2 and 3 in issuing Tender-cum-Public Auction Notice in RC.No.N4-333/2008- E.No.17167, dated 11.01.2024 calling for tenders in respect of lease of shop No.1 (HarithaAngadi Shop), Indira Gandhi Municipal Corporation Stadium Complex, Vijayawada without proper publication of Tender, without conducting the auction on the schedule date as fixed in the said notice only to deprive the intending persons from participating in the auction.

2. When the matter came up on 27.03.2024, this Court granted status quo with regard to possession of the shop, pending further orders.

3. Alleging disobedience of the status quo orders dated 27.03.2024, the writ petitioner filed a Contempt Case vide C.C.No.2022 of 2024.

4. Inasmuchas both the matters are interconnected, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

5. Heard Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, Sri S.V.S.S.Sivaram, learned Standing counsel for Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Sri Narasimha Rao M.R.L., learned counsel for respondent no.3 in writ petition and Ms.AishwaryaNagula, learned counsel for respondent no.1 in Contempt Case.

6. Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for writ petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that earlier the corporation issued tender-cum-auction notice in the year 2023 but auction was not conducted on the scheduled date on the ground of pendency of writ petition vide W.P.No.19523 of 2021 and consequently the said notification was withdrawn. He would further contend that the corporation with a view to avoid competitive bidding and only to favour the person in whom they are interested issued the impugned tender-cum-auction notice in a newspaper which has no circulation in violation of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.56, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (MA&UD) Department dated 05.02.2011 and hence the subject tender-cum-action notice has to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

7. On the other hand, Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation, on counter contended that the petitioner, who has not participated in the tender process, has no locus standi to question the tender process. He would further contended that the tender notification was published in newspaper as per Rules and the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that the said newspaper has no wide circulation. He would further contend that it is well settled that the corporation has every right to withdraw the tender notification at any stage. He would further contended that the tender process has already been completed and three individuals have participated in the tender and the tender has been awarded to the highest tenderer. The writ petition lacks merit and the same is purely speculative and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

8. Sri M.R.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel would contend that unless demonstrated that the tender process was tainted with arbitrariness and mala fides, the courts would not interfere with tendering process and as the petitioner did not even alleged either arbitrariness or mala fides on the part of the authorities, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

10. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned tender- cum-public auction notice has not been published as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 05.02.2011. The said Government Order was issued under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Regulation of Receipts & Expenditure) Rules, 1968 and it has no relevancy to the facts of the case on hand or the subject issue. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner, who did not even participate in tender process, has no locus standi to question the tender process. It is fairly settled that the Courts would not interfere, unless arbitrariness and mala fides are glaring in tendering process. Except making a bald allegation that the newspaper in which the tender notice was published has no circulation, the petitioner did not even allege any arbitrariness or mala fides on the part of the authorities. Moreover, the tendering process has already been completed and the subject shop was alleged to the highest tenderer.

11. In view of the above, since the petitioner did not participate in the tender and that neither arbitrariness nor mala fides are pleaded on the part of the tendering authorities, the petitioner failed to make out a case warranting interference of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition being meritless desereves dismissal.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.