Dismissed

S.S.Security Force and Maintenance Service v. State Project Director

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Feb 2024WP/16050/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition as infructuous. The petitioner challenged the exclusion from a financial bid for manpower services in government schools dating back to 2018. The court held the cause of action no longer survived.

What did the court decide?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous and issued no order as to costs.

S.S.Security Force and Maintenance… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ■ (Special^{ANDHRAPRADESH} aiviaravati Original Jurisdiction) "

¶2

""toSthoSdandK

¶3

present

¶4

THE honourable sivit justice V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITinM NO; 16050 OF 2nifl

Between:

, 41-

AND

Petitioner

Of AP, Krishna

¶10

—Respondents

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated i m the affidavit filed therewith, be pleased to the High Court may grant appropriate relief Mandamus under Article more in the nature of Writ of 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly, the Respondent fn not calling the Petitioners considering the at the time of opening financial bid and not case of the Petitioners for aflotting the work to Petitioners pertaining to providing manpower to 13 district project offices, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in AP taking into account the bid .offered by the Petitioners agency commission ass arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide and

¶12

District

¶13

unconstitutional violating Article 14, 19(1)(g) and²¹ of the Constitution "Of India and issue consequential directions directing the Respondents to forthwith consider the case of the Petitioners along^{withothersatthetime} V V of finalizing the tenders taking into account the excess agency commission y «•' rfdffered by the Petitioners vis-a-vis others and pass

¶14

lA NQ: 1 OF 2018

¶15

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 to direct the Respondents to forthwith consider^thecase of the Petitioners for providing manpower to the 13 district project offices, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in AP taking into account the agency^{commissionoffered} by the Petitioners, along with others while making final allotments in pursuance of the tender notification No. 5101/APSSA/A7/2017, dt. 18.09.2017 pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : Not present

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent 1: REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC^FOR SAiVlAGRA SHIKSHA)

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent 2: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶19

The Court made the following order:

¶20

¶21

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶22

Writ Petition No. 16050 of 2018

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners^under Article 226 of Constitution of India, challenging the action of the respondent in not calling the petitioners at the time^{ofopeningfinancial} bid and not considering the case of the petitioners^{forallottingthework} to petitioners pertaining to providing manpower to 13^{districtproject} offices, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in A.P. taking into account the bid agency commission offered by the petitioners and are^seeking direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners^alongwith others at the time of finalizing the tenders taking^{intoaccounttheexcess} agency commission offered by the petitioners.

¶25

As the petitioners have filed the present writ petition^againstthe respondents for not calling the petitioners at the^{timeofopeningthe} financial bid in the year 2018, this Court feels that^{thecauseinthewrit} petition would not survive.

¶26

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.^There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any^intheWrit

¶28

SD/- U. SRIDEVI

¶29

To,

¶30

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^SECTION OFFICER

¶31

State Project Director, AP Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, State of AP D^thct*^^^^ Vijayakrishna Towers, West Ibrahimpatnam,^Krishna

¶32

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi,^{GunturDistrict}

¶33

One CC to SRI. P V KRISHNAIAH Advocate [OPUC]

¶34

One CC to SRI. REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA) Advocate [OPUC]

¶35

Two CD Copies

PMT

HIGH COURT

DATED : 08/02/2024

x/-;7

‘ %
<
I
I
ORDER
WP„No.16O50 of 2018

¶41

DISSiSSSING THE WP WITHOOT COSTS

S.S.Security Force and Maintenance Service v. State Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.S.Security Force and Maintenance Service v. State Project Director

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

Sri Adarsa Vardhan Educational and Rural Development Centre, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Deeaar Agro Chempharms Llp., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Parsotam Patel, Vs The State of A.P

Gundapaneni Venkata Krishna Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Nagamani Granites Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dasarath Reddy and Co. Vs the State of Ap