Dismissed

Sri Balaji Fasteners Private Limited, a Private Limited v. The Union of India

Telangana HC10 Jul 2008WP/2911/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the non-award of a tender. On the date of listing, respondents informed the Court that the impugned tender had been cancelled and the matter had become infructuous. Lack of petitioner representation confirmed the dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

Sri Balaji Fasteners Private Limited, a… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2911 of 2008

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri Balaji Fasteners Private Limited, a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of The Phase IV Extension, IDA Jeedimetla, Hyderabad-55, and office at Plot No.110, Flat No.201, Kamalapuri Colony, Phase-I, Hyderabad-500 073, rep . by their M.D. N.A. Prasad.

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The Union of India, rep. by The General Manager, Secunderabad.

¶9

2 The Principal Chief Engineer,

¶10

Secunderabad.

¶11

3 The Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Vijayawada Division, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶12

4 The Additional Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Vijayawada Division, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a Writ directing the respondents herein to award the work relating to TENDER No.37/Bridges/2007 at Srl. No.10 in open Tender Notice No. DRM/Works/BZA/28/2007 dated 26-11-2007 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Vijayawada after declaring the impugned action in not considering the tender of the petitioner company for awarding the work as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice, illegal and void in the interest of justice and pass such other or further orders

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.NALIN KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MRS.C.V.VINITHA REDDY

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

ORDER

¶19

When the writ petition came up for admission on 8.7.2008, learned counsel appearing for the respondents represents that the writ petition has become infructuous since the tender impugned in this writ petition has been cancelled.

¶20

As there was no representation on 8.7.2008, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for orders’. Even on this day, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in paragraph No. 4 of the counteraffidavit which reads as under:

¶21

“The petitioner herein found not eligible, the next lowest tenderer’s case was considered by the tender committee and after having satisfied that he has fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria and similar nature of work, negotiations were conducted with him. During the negotiations with him, the rates quoted by him were found to be higher than the previously accepted rates and accordingly, the tender committee recommended to discharge the tender and to call for fresh tenders. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, accepted the recommendation of the tender committee on 18.2.2008 with regard to discharge of the tender and to call for fresh tenders. I further submit that there is no favoritism, no

¶22

arbitrariness, no violation of principles of natural justice under Article 14 of Constitution of India as contended by the petitioner and the said contentions are not correct and denied. As already submitted above, the tender committee has gone into all aspects and ultimately recommended for the discharge of the tender and to call for fresh tenders.

¶23

In view of the fact that the tender impugned in this writ petition is being discharged, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

¶25

_________ 10-07-2008

¶26

rkk

Sri Balaji Fasteners Private Limited, a Private Limited v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Balaji Fasteners Private Limited, a Private Limited v. The Union of India

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. K.Aruna Kumari, Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Budiga Srujana D/o Venkateswarlu Vs A.P. Board of Secondary Education, rep by its Secretary

P.Narsa Reddy, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep., by

Steel City Shipping Services (P) Limited, a Company Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Dr.Potluri Venkateswar Rao, S/o Hari Purushothama Rao Vs The Vice-Chairnam

Smt. Varanasi Surya Kumari Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary