ORDER : Subba Reddy Satti, J. The Writ Petition is filed to declare the orders of 3rd respondent vide Roc.No.3362/10/13F-2/E4 dated 26.03.2012; Roc.Nos.3362/10/13F-10/E4; 3362/10/13F- 5/E4; 3362/10/13F-9/E4 and 3362/10/13F-4/E4 dated 06.08.2012, cancelling the tenders and forfeiting the EMDs and ASDs and FSDs, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri C.Abhishek, learned counsel representing Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for 3rd respondent. 3. The 3rd respondent has called for certain tenders through e-procurement to execute the following works: a) Construction of Storm Water Drain in 12th Division, Venkateswara Nagar, Kakinada with estimated value of Rs.43,00,000/-; b) Construction of Storm Water Drain in 10th Division, Satya Nagar, near Rajiv Gruhakalpa, Dummulapeta, Kakinada with estimated value of Rs.48,00,000/-; c) Construction of Storm Water Drain in 49th Division, from Saranya Public School to Somalamma Temple on its northern side to connect to Outlet drain in Rajeswari Nagar with estimated value of Rs.40,00,000/-; d) Construction of Storm Water Drain in 1st Division, from Padma Nagar to the present RTO office Junction on its western side with estimated value of Rs.21,15,000/-; e) Construction of Storm Water Drain in 1st Division, from Ramanayyapet Main Road to RTO office to the 1st Cross Road in Vidyanagar (Beraka church Road) with estimated value of Rs.30,00,000/-; f) Construction of Storm Water Drain at Dummulapeta in 10th and 11th Divisions with estimated value of Rs.43,00,000/-; g) Construction of Storm Water Drain at M.S.N. Charities, Yanam Road with estimated value of Rs.25,82,000/-; 3. Petitioner submitted tenders for all the works by paying EMD and he stood as L1 bidder. Letter of acceptance was given on 13.01.2012. Petitioner has to enter into agreements and to commence the work. 4. In respect of 6th work, referred to supra, the petitioner neither entered into agreement nor commenced the work and hence, notices dated 24.01.2012 and 01.02.2012 were issued to the petitioner. Petitioner addressed letter dated 23.01.2012 stating that in respect of works 1, 2, 3 & 4, he paid EMD and ASDs and entered into agreements and hence, requested to give clearance and markings. In respect of works 5 & 6, he paid EMD and ASDs are yet to be paid. Immediately after clearance and markings, he would pay the ASDs and enter into agreements and proceed with the works. In respect of work No.7, he requested to give clearance and markings. 5. In respect of works 5 & 6, he paid EMD and ASDs are yet to be paid. Immediately after clearance and markings, he would pay the ASDs and enter into agreements and proceed with the works. In respect of work No.7, he requested to give clearance and markings. 5. Petitioner addressed letter dated 26.03.2012 stating that in respect of works 1 to 6 mentioned therein, he entered into agreements, however the authorities did not give any markings and hence, requested to extend the time till 31.07.2012. In respect of work relating to construction of Storm Water Drain in 10th and 11th Divisions, 6th work referred to supra, he submitted a representation stating that the people residing therein are raising objections and hence requested to commence the work in the first instance and later allow him to pay ASDs and enter into agreement. 6. In respect of work relating to construction of Storm Water Drain in 10th and 11th Divisions, 6th work referred to supra, since the petitioner failed to entered into agreement, the office of 3rd respondent issued notices dated 24.01.2012 and 01.02.2012 and eventually by proceedings impugned in the writ petition vide Roc.No.3362/10/13F-2/E4 dated 26.03.2012, cancelled the tender and forfeited the EMD. Though the work was cancelled on 26-3-2012 and forfeited EMD, the petitioner challenged the said proceedings along with the other proceedings. 7. In respect of item No.6, though the petitioner stood as the successful bidder, neither entered into agreement nor deposited the ASDs and FSDs and commenced the work. Petitioner, in fact, addressed letter to allow the petitioner to commence the work and thereafter he will enter into agreements and will deposit ASDs. No explanation was offered by the petitioner to the notices dated 24.01.2012 and 01.02.2012. Petitioner, in fact, is aware of the conditions and failed to enter into agreement and pay ASDs and FSDs. 8. As seen from the counter affidavit, after cancelling the tenders, re-tenders were called for and work was awarded to another contractor on 23.04.2012. After the new contractor paid FSD on 10.05.2012, agreement was entered into on 15.05.2012. In view of the same, cancellation of tender in respect of Item No.6 and forfeiture of EMD vide proceedings dated 26.03.2012, this Court does not find any irregularity and impropriety. 9. In respect of other four works, though cause of action is independent and separate, petitioner filed the single writ petition. In view of the same, cancellation of tender in respect of Item No.6 and forfeiture of EMD vide proceedings dated 26.03.2012, this Court does not find any irregularity and impropriety. 9. In respect of other four works, though cause of action is independent and separate, petitioner filed the single writ petition. In respect of four works relating to construction of storm water drain from Saranya Public School upto existing drain in Somalamma temple duly connecting Rajeswari Nagar layout in 49th Division; construction of construction of storm water drain along 1st cross road at Vidya Nagar Beraka church road from Ramanayyapeta Main Road to RTO office road in 1st Division; construction of storm water drain from Padma Nagar to existing drain at RTO office along western side in 1st Division and construction of storm water drain in Venkateswara Colony upto the disposal point in 12th Division, petitioner entered into agreements on 28.03.2012, 02.03.2012 and 07.03.2012. As per the agreements, time granted to complete the works is 3 months and 4 months. 10. As seen from the correspondence between the petitioner and respondent-Corporation, petitioner addressed letter about pointing out the SSR rates and non-inclusion of certain components. In fact, petitioner also requested the authority to cancel the works allotted. Petitioner having verified e- tender, participated and stood as L1 bidder, failed to execute works. Pursuant to entering into agreement, after issuance of reminders, petitioner failed to commence works on one or other reasons. 11. In fact, 3rd respondent addressed letter to the petitioner vide Roc.No.3362/2010/13F-4/E4, dated 31.07.2012 and clarified that implementation of price escalation is possible if the works are completed within the agreement period. Petitioner submitted representation to include centering charges, water charges etc in the concluded agreement. In fact, the 3rd respondent clarified that it is not possible to include the above items after the agreement was concluded. Even after issuance of notices dated 17.05.2012, 30.05.2012, 06.06.2012 and 31.07.2012 and the works are not grounded. The agreements in respect of four works referred to supra, were cancelled on 06.08.2012 by forfeiting EMD, ASDs and FSDs. 12. Counter affidavit was filed by the Commissioner of 3rd respondent in the year 2012. Along with memo vide USR No.2707 of 2024 dated 08.01.2024, copy of the rejoinder was field. Photostat copy of rejoinder filed neither contain the signature of the petitioner nor advocate it was noted as office copy. 12. Counter affidavit was filed by the Commissioner of 3rd respondent in the year 2012. Along with memo vide USR No.2707 of 2024 dated 08.01.2024, copy of the rejoinder was field. Photostat copy of rejoinder filed neither contain the signature of the petitioner nor advocate it was noted as office copy. However, this Court is not going into those technicalities. 13. Petitioner after emerged as the successful bidder, having entered into agreements, failed to execute the works. In fact, the respondent authorities issued show cause notices and after following the procedure, cancelled the works and forfeited, EMDs, ASDs and FSDs. Since the authorities followed the procedure, in the considered opinion of this Court, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition need not be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In fact, as seen from the material papers filed, a number of disputed questions of fact would crop up i.e. not following SSR rates, alleged non inclusion of certain works etc., which require evidence to be let in. The same cannot be adjudicated by way of mere affidavit and counter affidavit. 15. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally, shall not adjudicate the disputed questions of fact. 16. In Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another AIR 2003 SC 1060 : (2003) 4 SCC 317 , it is held that the disputed questions of fact could not be entertained in the writ proceedings. In Paragraph-22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "22. ...a disputed question of fact normally would not be entertained in a writ proceeding. This aspect of the matter has also been "considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 ...." 17. In Dharam Dutt v. Union of India AIR 2004 SC 1295 : (2004) 1 SCC 712 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such highly disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined except on evidence are not fit to be taken up for-adjudication in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 18. As discussed supra, the petitioner included different independent causes of action in the writ petition and sought for issuance of Writ of Mandamus. The writ petition, in the considered opinion f this court, is not maintainable on that ground alone. 18. As discussed supra, the petitioner included different independent causes of action in the writ petition and sought for issuance of Writ of Mandamus. The writ petition, in the considered opinion f this court, is not maintainable on that ground alone. However, this court considered the entire material on record, and in view of the discussion supra, concludes that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.