Dismissed

G.Ratna Kumar v. The Chairman and Managing Director, E.P.D.C. of A.P.

Telangana HC10 Mar 2006WP/4737/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a denial of an electric supply contractor's employment. The court held that disputes over non-statutory contracts, factual violations of reciprocal promises, and claims for compensation are exclusively civil matters and not suitable for judicial review under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed leaving the petitioner at liberty to pursue remedies in the civil court.

G.Ratna Kumar Vs The Chairman and Managing Director… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P.NO. 4737 OF 2006

DATED: 10.3.2006

Between:

G. Ratna Kumar

… Petitioner

and

The Chairman & Managing Director, E.P.D.C. of A.P. Limited, Visakhapatnam and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶11

W.P.NO.4737 OF 2006

¶12

ORAL ORDER:

¶13

The petitioner, a contractor in electrical works, entered into a non-statutory contractual relationship with the respondents pursuant to a tender notification issued by the 3^rd respondent for carrying out operation and maintenance in the 33/11 KV sub-station in Operation Circle, Rajahmundry and for Peddapuram sub-station, Kakinada division. He was awarded the work for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006, pursuant to an agreement executed by the 3^rd respondent on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

¶14

According to the petitioner, he employed four qualified persons for carrying out the operation and maintenance works duly submitting resumes of those four employees along with certified copies of their educational qualifications to the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent is alleged to have employed three persons on his own on the influence of a local legislator and did not permit two of the persons identified by the petitioner to work. As a consequence, the petitioner states he suffered a loss during the contractual period ending on 31.3.2006. According to the petitioner, the respondents are trying to issue a tender notification for the ensuing year commencing from 1.4.2006. The petitioner claims to have suffered a loss in the contract for the previous year as he was not permitted to do the contract work by employing his own persons and at the instance of the 4^th respondent. He seeks in this writ petition a direction to the respondents to extend by one more year his contractual tenure i.e. from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 without resorting to a fresh tendering process.

¶15

Shorn off all the verbiage, the relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that this court must evaluate the factual conflicts; arrive at the conclusion that the employment of three persons on his own by the 4^th respondent was a violation of the non-statutory contractual terms between the petitioner and the respondents and consequently award the next year’s contract also to the petitioner as a measure of compensation/damages for the loss suffered by the petitioner, on account of the violation of the reciprocal promises by the respondents. This is an area essentially adjudicated by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and not by this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

No public law issues are presented for adjudication of these post-nonstatutory contractual disputes between the petitioner and the respondents.

¶17

Writ Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies including before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. No order as to costs.

¶18

GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶19

Date: 10.3.2006

¶20

cvm

G.Ratna Kumar v. The Chairman and Managing Director, E.P.D.C. of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ratna Kumar v. The Chairman and Managing Director, E.P.D.C. of A.P.

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

Smt.S.Subhashini, Vs The Joint Collector, Ananthapur

Agnihotram Venkatasubbaiah, Vs The Superintendent of Police

K. Sreeramulu S/o Pullanna Vs The Joint Collector, Kadapa

Y. Bali Reddy S/o Eshwar Reddy Vs The District Cooperative Officer

Karanam Guruvaiah, Vs The Station House Officer

T.Sudhakar Reddy Vs The Circle Inspector of Police