S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant writ petitioner said to be a displaced ryoths Association, Telugu Ganga Project, cuddapah District and alleged to be formed to protect the interest of the displaced ryoths whose lands have been acquired for Telugu Ganga Project, has filed this writ petition claiming for the following relief: to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the Tender Notice No. 5/ 2001-2002 dated 28. 7. 2001 issued by the 3rd respondent to the extent of works to item No. (i) and (ii) of the tender notice by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the public policy as provided by the Government and contrary to the orders passed in W. P. No. 16257 of 1997 dated 30. 9. 1999 and consequently direct the respondents to entrust the works above mentioned to the petitioner-association or to the Rehabilitation Committees of D. Agraharam Rehabilitation Centre and rekulakunta Rehabilitation Center of B. Mattam Mandal ( 2 ) IT s contention is that as per the instructions issued by the Government of India, Rehabilitation Committees are required to be constituted in order to implement the Rehabilitation Master Plan for the project affected persons. The case of the appellant is that the civil works of rehabilitation should be entrusted to the appellant s association whose members are no other than the beneficiaries of the rehabilitation programme. ( 3 ) IT appears that 3rd respondent issued tender notice on 28. 7. 2001 calling sealed tenders for execution of various works in Cuddapah Circle of Telugu Ganga Project. Items (i) and (ii) to which the appellant petitioner has confined the writ petition relates to construction of WMB roads at D. Agraharam Rehabilitation Centre and rekulakunta Rehabilitation Centre, the approximate cost of which, are estimated at rs. 17. 53 lakhs and Rs. 13. 50 lakhs respectively. ( 4 ) THE appellant contends that these two works ought to have been entrusted to the association of the beneficiaries/ rehabilitation committees instead of inviting open tenders. The action of the respondents in not entrusting the said works to the petitioner- association, it was contended, is contrary to the objective of the constitution of associations and the scheme of rehabilitation which is intended to involve the beneficiaries themselves in getting basic infrastructure in their colonies and to maintain quality by themselves. The action of the respondents in not entrusting the said works to the petitioner- association, it was contended, is contrary to the objective of the constitution of associations and the scheme of rehabilitation which is intended to involve the beneficiaries themselves in getting basic infrastructure in their colonies and to maintain quality by themselves. In this connection it also relied on the Memo of the government dated 24. 1. 2000 and the judgment of this Court in WP No. 16257 of 1997 dated 30. 9. 1999. Therefore, the appellant filed the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the tender notice so far it relates to items (1) and (2) are concerned. ( 5 ) BY the order impugned, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that no legal right is vested in the petitioner- association for entrustment of the works. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned judge erred in not directing the respondents herein to allot the works to the appellant association. It was contended that this Court in WP No. 1257 of 1997 observed that the government could frame guidelines for the purpose of allotting the works to the appellant-association. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, would submit that the appellant has no legal right to maintain the writ petition. Learned counsel would further contend that the work in question is a highly technical one wherefor tender notice had been issued and such technical works cannot be entrusted to the appellant-association. ( 8 ) IT is now trite that, in matters of contracts, save and in exceptional situations, the requirement of Article 14 of the constitution of India should be satisfied and the constitutional object may be achieved, if works of this nature are done through a successful bidder by taking recourse to tender process. ( 9 ) IT is one thing to say that with a view to avoid middlemen in contracts, elected habitation committees may be given preference in some works in the habitation centres, where no technical expertise is required and subject to the guidelines framed by the Government in that regard, but it is another thing to say that such preference should extend also to works where highly technical expertise is required. Further, there is nothing to show that appellant is an elected body. The Government Memo dated 24. 1. 2000, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant, in our view, will be of no avail to the appellant association. No specific directions or guidelines have been issued by the government for entrustment of works to the associations or habitation committees. In the memo it was clearly observed that while there can be no exception for involvement/ association of the beneficiaries in the antipoverty programmes, however, involving them in the other civil works of the colonies needs to be examined thoroughly. It was also observed that though they can be associated in identifying the requirements of the colonies, but, so far as entrusting the works to them is concerned, detailed guidelines, including quality checks are needed. No material has been produced before us indicating that any guidelines have been issued by the Government in the matter of allotment of civil works to elected associations/habitation committees. In the absence of any guidelines having been issued by the Government, no legal right can be said to have been vested in the appellant. It is stated that the appellant- society consists of displaced ryoths. But, nowhere in the writ petition, it is averred that it has the requisite expertise to do the aforementioned works. As already noticed hereinbefore, the civil works in question relate to construction of W. B. M. Roads in the rehabilitation centres. The job in question thus is highly technical one and involves a huge amount of money. Such a technical job, in our opinion, is required to be performed by experienced contractors having requisite expertise and infrastructure therefor. As indicated hereinbefore, the appellant has not stated in the writ petition nor any material has been produced before us to show that it has the requisite expertise or infrastructure to execute the works. The appellant association on its own showing has not been able to get itself registered with the respondents before 31. 8. 2001. ( 10 ) IN the aforementioned situation, in the absence of any enforceable legal right conferred on the appellant, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the appellant. ( 11 ) WE may notice that in WP no. 8. 2001. ( 10 ) IN the aforementioned situation, in the absence of any enforceable legal right conferred on the appellant, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the appellant. ( 11 ) WE may notice that in WP no. 16257 of 1999 wherein one of us V. V. S. Rao, J. , issued certain directions in a similar matter, upon which strong reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, a review application has been filed by the Government wherein, it was brought to our notice that an order of status quo has been passed. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view that no case has been made out for interfering with the impugned judgment. The writ appal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.