K.Kesavaiah Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER TECHNICAL, 0/O DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, RURALS, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED, GREAMSPETA CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Lr.No.SE/O/TPT/DE.T/PS/F.SS-1617/D.No. 2228/16/dt.25-10-2016 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal,

¶21

2

¶22

arbitrary and in violation of Principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents 2and 3 to continue the petitioner for the work of carrying out of operation & Maintenance of 33/11KV Sub stations namely Peddapuram, Melmai, Anikera, adigalakuppam and Karidimadugu in Rural Chittoor Division by concluding the agreements

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 45904 OF 2016

¶24

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 2 and 3 to continue the petitioner for the work of carrying out of operation & Maintenance of 33/11KV Sub-stations namely Peddapuram, Melmai, Anikera, Padigalakuppam and Karidimadugu in Rural Chittoor Division by concluding the agreements pending disposal of the above Writ petition,

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP 45905 OF 2016

¶26

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 suspend the Lr. No. S E/0/TPT/DE.T/P S/F. S S-16-17/D.No. 2228/16/dt.2510-2016 issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above Writ petition

¶27

IA NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP 51884 OF 2016

¶28

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 implead the petitioners herein as respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in the writ petition as well as in miscellaneous petitions and pass

¶29

IA NO: 4 OF 2016(WPMP 56858 OF 2016

¶30

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 implead the respondent Nos.6 to 9 in the writ petition as well as in miscellaneous petitions

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1.P GANGA RAMI REDDY

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶34

1.C JHANSI RANI

¶35

2.Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL

¶36

3.V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL)

¶37

¶38

5.O UDAYA KUMAR

¶39

6.JAGARLAMUDIKOTESWARIDEVI(SC FORAPSPDCL)

¶40

3

¶41

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶42

I.A.Nos.3 (WPMP.No.51884 of 2016) & 4 (WPMP No.56858 of 2016) of 2016

¶43

IN/AND

¶44

WRIT PETITION NO: 37242/2016

¶45

ORDER:-

¶46

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶47

claiming the following direction:

¶48

“to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Lr No SE/O/TPT/DE T/PS/F SS1617/D No 2228/16/dt 25102016 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal arbitrary and in violation of Principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents 2and 3 to continue the petitioner for the work of carrying out of operation Maintenance of 33/11KV Sub stations namely Peddapuram Melmai Anikera adigalakuppam and Karidimadugu in Rural Chittoor Division by concluding the agreements”

¶49

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing

¶50

Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶51

The case of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondents, vide Letter No.SE/O/TPT/DE.T/PS/F.SS-16-17/D.No.2228/16, cancelled the tender which was awarded to the petitioner and the agreement entered into with the petitioner for a period of one year for the year 2016–2017, alleging that, though the petitioner had claimed IR amounts as per Clause 13.1 of the Tender Notice, the said amounts had not been paid to the employees/lift operators engaged by the petitioner. In view of the interim direction dated 01.11.2016, passed by this Court, the petitioner continued with the contract and completed the entire tender period of one year.

¶52

During the pendency of the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondents have filed I.A.Nos.3 & 4 of 2016, seeking impleadment of the proposed respondent Nos.5 to 22 as the respondent Nos.5 to 22 in the writ

¶53

4

¶54

petition, who are the employees of the petitioner-company and who allegedly that they were not been paid the IR arrears. Since the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of cancellation of the tender, the issue relating to the alleged non-payment of IR arrears to the proposed respondents cannot be adjudicate in the present Writ Petition. The said issue involves disputed questions of fact between the petitioner and the unofficial proposed respondents, including the question as to whether any amounts were payable to them and the alleged arrears were, in fact, due and remained unpaid. Such disputed claims cannot appropriately be adjudicated in the present Writ Petition. The proposed unofficial respondents are at liberty to avail their remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law.

¶55

According, I.A.Nos.3 & 4 of 2016 are closed with liberty.

¶56

Thereafter, in view of the completion of the entire tender period for

¶57

which the contract was awarded for a period of one year. No cause survives for further adjudication, and no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶58

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶60

Date: 16-09-2026 BSM

¶61

5

¶62

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶63

I.A.Nos.3 (WPMP.No.51884 of 2016) & 4 (WPMP No.56858 of 2016) of 2016

¶64

IN/AND

¶65

WRIT PETITION NO.37242 OF 2016

¶66

Date 16-09-2026

¶67

W

¶68

BSM

K.Kesavaiah v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kesavaiah v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra

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