Dismissed

Muchivolu Raja Chandrasekhar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Dec 2024WP/28054/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the impugned permission accorded to the temple authorities to engage services via Gujarat Workers without inviting tenders, arguing their nine-year service should mandate a tender process. The court dismissed the expansion on causes of action as non-procedural and closed the matter. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; Writ Petition closed as no cause of action implied.

Muchivolu Raja Chandrasekhar Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010537492024

¶2

[3310]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 28054/2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Muchivolu Raja Chandrasekhar and Others

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶15

1.G RAMESH BABU

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶18

The Court made the following Order:

¶19

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶20

seeking the following relief:

¶21

“…. . to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd Respondent in not calling for tenders to engage the services of 18 persons to hold Godugulu, Suritilu Divity, Controlling Queue Lines, Ticket Counters and Gosala etc.. in 3^rd Respondent Temple and its Sub-Temples on outsourcing basis pursuant to the permission accorded by the 2^nd Respondent vide D.Dis.No.C1/13027(40)/12/2024, dt.9.2.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3^rd Respondent to call for tenders to engage services of 18

¶22

¶23

persons to hold Godugulu, Suritilu Divity, Controlling Queue Lines, Ticket Counters and Gosala etc.. in 3^rd Respondent Temple and its Sub-Temples …….”

¶24

Heard Mr.G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned

¶25

Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.T.V.S.Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

¶26

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3^rd respondent-temple is renowned for its Vayu Linga and is very famous Shiva Kshetram situated in Srikalahasthi, Tirupati District. The petitioners are rendering their services of holding Godugulu, Suritilu Divity, Controlling Queue Lines, Ticket Counters and Gosala etc.. for the past nine years on Mahasivarathri Day and on all festival days, when the deities are taken out in a procession relating to the 3^rd respondent-temple and its sub-temples. On 29.08.2022, the issue of payment of salaries was placed before the Trust Board Meeting of 3^rd respondent and the same was approved and recommended for payment of salaries to the petitioners. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent through proceedings in Rc.No.Rev-59/A1/1/2022, dated 09.08.2023 requested the 2^nd respondent to accord permission for appointment of 18 persons on a salary basis to hold Godugulu, Suritilu Divity, Controlling Queue Lines, Ticket Counters and Gosala, etc.. on outsourcing basis by duly calling for tenders. Pursuant to the same, the 2^nd respondent

¶27

¶28

vide D.Dis.No.C1/13027(40)/12/2024, dated 09.02.2024 accorded permission to engage the services of 18 persons to hold Godugulu, Suvitilu, Divities and also near queue line on Saturday, Sunday and Monday along with heavy rush days in the 3^rd respondent temple and its sub-temples on outsourcing basis by calling for tenders. He further submits that the 3^rd respondent, due to Election Code instead of calling tenders, through its letter in Rc.No.A1/1/2022, dated 01.04.2024 asked Sri Guru Dakshina Workers Welfare Association for supply of man power to the institutions, to supply 18 men for the subject work for the period from 01.04.2024 to 30.06.2024. He further submits that, the petitioners are rendering the subject works in the 3^rd respondent-temple for the past nine years without any remuneration. But the respondents are not calling for tenders for engaging the petitioners on outsourcing basis. Therefore, learned counsel requests to pass appropriate orders.

¶29

Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that, due to General Election Code, the tender process for supply of 18 persons on Outsourcing basis was not called for. Thereafter, the Regular Executive Officer was not working in 3^rd respondent temple from 01.07.2024 and the Regular Executive Officer joined on 03.11.2024. As per the orders of the 2^nd respondent, the action will be taken to engage the services of 18 persons on outsourcing basis through tender process. He further submits that the 3^rd respondent-temple was not utilizing the services of the petitioners in the Devasthanam and if the

¶30

¶31

petitioners are eligible for requisite qualifications, then the tender will be supplied to the petitioners if any. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel submits that, nothing survives in the present writ petition and the same may be closed.

¶32

Recording the above submissions, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs.

¶33

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶35

BMS

Muchivolu Raja Chandrasekhar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muchivolu Raja Chandrasekhar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Rajashekar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Javangula Ramachandra Nath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Krishnamurthy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Yaganti Singaraiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S.Chandrasekhara Naidu, S/o.Krishnaiah Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Sathibabu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh