Disposed

M/s.Katakam Infra Projects (India) Limited v. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh limited

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Sept 2021WP/19009/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Chief Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Transco, to furnish the vigilance report and a letter from the Chief General Manager to the petitioner within one week. The court held that authorities must act transparently and provide documents forming the basis of action with civil consequences when planning to cancel licenses or call fresh tenders.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the 2nd respondent to furnish copies of the Chief General Manager's letter and the vigilance report within one week; petitioner to submit explanation thereafter; interim order to

M/s.Katakam Infra Projects (India)… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19009 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶5

In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the action of the 2^nd respondent/The Chief Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Transco, Kadapa Zone, Kadapa in not awarding the work relating to items E-11/21-22 and E-14/21-22 in the open tender notice No.21/21-22 of CE/KDPZ/KDP/SE-Z/EE-T/DEE-T1/AEET1/F.Doc/D.No.1141/21, dated 14.06.2021.

¶6

The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that though the petitioner herein emerged as L1 bidder for the said contractual works, the respondents herein are not entrusting the said works.

¶7

A perusal of the material available on record reveals that the Chief Engineer/2^nd respondent herein, on the basis of vigilance report, issued a show-cause notice vide letter No.CE/KDPZ/KDP/SEZ/EET1/DEET1/AEE-T1/F./D.No.1624/21,

¶8

dated 11.08.2021 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his license should not be cancelled and why it should not be blacklisted.

¶9

¶10

In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner herein addressed a letter dated 18.08.2021 to the 2^nd respondent wherein the petitioner requested the 2^nd respondent to furnish the copy of the enquiry report and also the letter addressed by the Chief General Mananger, so as to enable it to submit explanation. In the above circumstances, the petitioner herein has come up before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶11

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner without furnishing the documents sought by the petitioner, the respondents herein are contemplating to call for fresh tenders. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that during the course of enquiry by the vigilance wing, no notice was issued to the petitioner and it was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the person who alleged to have stated that amounts were collected.

¶12

Obviously, grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that fresh tenders are likely to be called for without considering the request of the petitioner to furnish the documents for filing his explanation. It is absolutely not in controversy that in pursuance of the request made by the petitioner herein, the respondent herein did not furnish the copy of the report which obviously formed the foundation for the impugned action.

¶13

In the considered opinion of this Court, the authorities are required to act in a transparent manner whenever there is a contemplation to take action which has civil consequences. This Court

¶14

¶15

does not find any justification on the part of the 2^nd respondent in not furnishing the documents which formed the basis and foundation for initiating action against the petitioner.

¶16

In the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to furnish copies of the letter addressed by the Chief General Manager and also the vigilance report to the petitioner as sought by the petitioner vide representation dated 18.08.2021, within one(1) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioner herein shall submit his explanation/objection to the show-cause notice dated 11.08.2021, issued by the 2^nd respondent within a week for consideration of the same by the 2^nd respondent, in accordance with law and for passing appropriate orders. It is also made clear that till a decision is taken by the 2^nd respondent, the interim order dated 02.09.2021 granted by this Court shall remain in operation. No costs.

¶17

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for

¶18

consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

_________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶20

07.09.2021 Tm

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶23

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.19009 OF 2021

¶25

Date: 07-09-2021

¶26

M/s.Katakam Infra Projects (India) Limited v. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Katakam Infra Projects (India) Limited v. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raavi Prasad, Vs The Andhra Pradesh

Pulagam Gani Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Maramreddi Chiranjeevi Reddy Vs The a.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

Nallapaneni Srinivasulu Vs Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited

S.v.Ramana Reddy, Vs Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.

M/s. Sambasiva Milk Transport, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh