Dismissed

M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. M/s. Hyderabad Coach Builders and Fabricators

Telangana HC29 Nov 2010WA/767/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Constitution Bench: Held as below. Where an appellant-Corporation issued a tender and the respondent became a successful bidder, the appellant cannot go back on the tender process merely because it has an alternative process for fabricated bus bodies from the Central Government.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the interim order granting direction to release the chasis.

M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

¶4

WRIT APPEAL NO.767 OF 2010

¶5

JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri B.Prakash Rao}

¶6

Heard Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-Corporation and Sri R.Raghunandan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

The appellants-Corporation, which is respondent in Writ Petition No.15250 of 2010, filed this appeal, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge pending the Writ Petition, wherein interim direction was granted to the appellants-Corporation to release the chasis to the petitioner, being the deficiency amount under the work order, subject to the terms of the agreement dated 25.05.2009 and more specifically, the clauses contained therein with regard to the price variation.

¶8

The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that admittedly, the appellant himself issued the tender notice dated 19.01.2009 in which the respondent became a successful bidder. According to the appellant, now the Central Government has stated that in regard to the fabricated vehicles, it was found not necessary to go again with the tender process or to contract with which the respondent is intended to. Therefore, there is no necessity for any such exercise as per the said tender notification. Hence, it is a clear approach on the part of the respondents herein in not supplying the work orders, as agreed to in the Work Order, which has been issued to the respondent herein dated 21.03.2009. Hence, the appeal.

¶9

Having considered the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is quite transpiring that having issued a tender and the respondent becoming a successful bidder, the appellant cannot go back on the said process. Necessarily, it has to see its own logical end as to the supply of the work order under the contract. Merely because the appellant has got some alternative process of fabricated bus bodies from the Central Government, it cannot go back. This contract is only independent and nothing to do with the arrangement made by he appellant. This itself shows clear breach on the part of the appellant-Corporation. Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order or the learned Single Judge.

¶10

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶11

____________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, HACJ)

¶12

__________________ (V.SURI APPA RAO, J)

¶13

29^th November 2010 RRB

M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. M/s. Hyderabad Coach Builders and Fabricators

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. M/s. Hyderabad Coach Builders and Fabricators

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

Smt.T.Rangamma, Vs Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

M. Shankaraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Srinivas Reddy Vs Joint Collector

Voggu Murali Vs State of A.P

R.Ramu Vs The Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong

M/s. Sambhavi Cold Storage Pvt. LTd., Vs The District Collector and Magistrate