Disposed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Sept 2021WP/19048/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Chief Engineer of Andhra Pradesh Transco to furnish the vigilance report and the letter addressed by the Chief General Manager to the petitioner within one week.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to furnish vigilance report and letter by Chief General Manager within one week.

What the court decided

S.v.Ramana Reddy, Vs Transmission Corporation… — Company and Corporate | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.19048 of 2021

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

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

¶4

In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the action of the 2^nd respondent/The Chief Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Transco,

¶5

Kadapa Zone, Kadapa in not awarding the work relating to item E-12/21-22 in the open tender notice No.01/21-22 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 in respect of the above referred item of the tender notice, the respondents herein are not entrusting the work to the petitioner.

¶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.1522/21,

¶8

dated 31.07.2021 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 11.08.2021 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 11.08.2021, 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 31.07.2021, 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 03.09.2021 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

WRIT PETITION No.19048 OF 2021

¶24

Date: 07-09-2021

¶25

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

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

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

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

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