Dismissed

B. Subba Reddy v. The Chief General Manager (Operations) A.P. Southern

Telangana HC23 Dec 2010WP/11484/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to set aside the blacklisting of a contract dealer. The court held that the order was not arbitrary or illegal, given the evidence of false solvency certificates and the petitioner's lack of bona fides in explaining the property inclusion.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim order in related MP case vacated; connected multipartition writs disposed of as infructuous.

B. Subba Reddy Vs The Chief General Manager… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.11484 of 2010

DT.23.12.2010

Between:

B.Subba Reddy

… Petitioner

And

The Chief General Manager (Operations), A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Tirupati and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.K.Aruna

¶11

Counsel for respondents: Sri S.V.Ramana

¶12

For Sri O.Manohar Reddy

¶13

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Smt.K.Aruna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel, representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL, representing the respondents.

¶16

The petitioner was a Class-III Contractor. In connection with his up-gradation as Class-I Contractor, he has submitted a solvency certificate issued by the In-charge Tahsildar, wherein an extent of Acs.6.90 cents in Survey No.233/1 was included showing the same as

¶17

belonging to the petitioner. Obviously, on coming to know about the said fact, the purchaser of the said property, by name, P.Seetha Rama Raju filed a petition stating that he has purchased the said property and that the same has been falsely shown in the solvency certificate obtained by the petitioner. It appears, there was a press report in a daily newspaper published on 11.10.2009. Obviously under pressure, the petitioner approached the respondents with a request to return the solvency certificate.

¶18

Accordingly, while taking return of the solvency certificate, the petitioner has produced another solvency certificate stated to have been signed by the Panchayat Secretary showing that he owns house bearing No.2-247-5 in Yerragondapalem Village. After examination of the said solvency certificate, respondent No.3 has issued a show-cause notice containing two allegations, which are as under –

¶19

Lapse:- As per the oral and documentary evidence adduced during the enquiry with revenue authorities revealed that the contractor Sri B.Subba Reddy, has submitted the false solvency certificate while is found false and not genuine in nature. It is clearly stated by the revenue authorities that the house No.2-247-5 mentioned in the certificate was not actually the house of Sri B.Subba Reddy and the RC.No.542/09 mentioned was not entered in any record of their office. The Panchayat Secretary also stated that they never saw the contractor Sri B.Subba Reddy and he has not signed the solvency certificate (Copies of evidences are enclosed herewith).

¶20

Lapses:- The oral and documentary evidence that was adduced during the enquiry revealed that Sri B.Subba Reddy, contractor in collusion with Sri K.L.Narasaiah in-charge Tahsildar prepared a false solvency certificate and submitted to the Corporate Office for registration of contractor.

¶21

The Petitioner P.Seetha Rama Raju submitted a petition against the respondent with a contention that the solvency certificate submitted to the Corporate Office by the respondent was a false one and part of land exhibited in the certificate

¶22

belongs to him.

¶23

During the course of enquiry, Sri V.Venkateswarlu, V.R.O., Mallapalem has stated that he did not know anything about the property certificate and he did not sign it. The signature in the certificate was not pertaining to V.R.O., Mallapalem.

¶24

During the course of enquiry, Sri Zilani Basha, Tahsildar, Pullalacheruvu has stated that the property certificate issued by Sri K.L.Narasaiah the then in charge Tahsildar was cancelled on representation of the petitioner Sri P.Seetha Rama Raju, as it was not genuine because the land Ac.6.90 cents in S.No.233/1 of Mallapalem village was belong to Smt.B.Akkamma who was the grandmother of B.Subba Reddy and the same was purchased by the petitioner and his son.”

¶25

The petitioner has submitted his explanation, wherein he has stated that he owns house bearing No.2-247-5 of Yerragondapalem Village and that the Panchayat Secretary who singed the solvency certificate obviously under pressure and coercion, would have stated that he has not signed the said certificate. As regards allegation No.2, it was stated that after searching the records, the Tahsildar, Pullalacheruvu, and the Village Revenue Officer, Mallapalem issued the solvency certificate and that there is no question of the petitioner producing a false solvency certificate. On consideration of the explanation of the petitioner, respondent No.3 has passed order, dated 27.04.2010, blacklisting the petitioner for a period of two years for producing false solvency certificate.

¶26

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from illegalities and arbitrariness. She has stated that the finding that the two solvency certificates are false is not supported by proper material and that therefore the same is not sustainable.

¶27

The leaned counsel for the respondents has opposed these

¶28

contentions and submitted that both the solvency certificates produced by the petitioner have turned out to be false and therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegalities or arbitrariness as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶30

Let me first consider allegation No.2, which pertains to the first solvency certificate produced by the petitioner. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that in collusion with the In-charge Tahsildar, he has prepared a solvency certificate and produced before the Corporate Office for registration. Under the caption ‘lapses’, it is stated that one P.Seetha Rama Raju, has submitted a petition, wherein he has stated that the land which was included in the solvency certificate belongs to him and that Sri V.Venkateswarlu, Village Revenue Officer, Mallapalem during vigilance enquiry has stated that he did not sign the solvency certificate and Sri Zilani Basha, Tahsildar has stated that the solvency certificate issued by the then Tahsildar was cancelled on representation of Sri P.Seetha Rama Raju, that the extent of Acs.6.90 cents in Survey No.233/1of Mallapalem Village, which was included in the solvency certificate belonged to one Smt.B.Akkamma, the grandmother of the petitioner and that the same was purchased by the said P.Seetha Rama Raju and his son.

¶31

It is noteworthy that despite the specific details contained in allegation No.2 and lapses shown in respect of the said allegation, the petitioner is totally silent as to how he included the extent of Acs.6.90 cents in the solvency certificate. The petitioner never denied the claim of Sri P.Seetha Rama Raju as found reference in the allegation that he has purchased the property to the extent of Acs.6.90 cents included in the solvency certificate. Far from offering any explanation in this regard, the petitioner tried to stick to his stand that there was nothing wrong in the

¶32

solvency certificate, which was issued purportedly after a thorough enquiry and search of records by the Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer. Surprisingly, for the first time, the petitioner has sought to explain in his affidavit filed in this writ petition that inclusion of the said property in the solvency certificate was a mistake as the same was sold away by his family members to meet his family necessities. The failure of the petitioner to come out with such a stand in his explanation offered to the show-cause notice itself speaks eloquently on lack of bona fides on his part. Had inclusion of extent of Acs.6.90 cents, which was admittedly sold by his family much before issuance of the first solvency certificate, been bona fide as now sought to be made out by the petitioner in this writ petition, he would have unhesitatingly taken that stand in his explanation. The so-called mistake pleaded for the first time in his affidavit filed in this writ petition is thus purely an after thought, which cannot be accepted.

¶33

Next coming to allegation No.1, which relates to the second solvency certificate, it is specifically alleged in the show-cause notice that the Panchayat Secretary, who is a signatory to the said solvency certificate, is stated to have made a statement before the vigilance authorities that he has never signed the said certificate. There is some dispute as to whether the petitioner owns premises bearing No.2-247-5 of Yerragondapalem Village.

¶34

In my opinion, the conduct of the petitioner by submitting a false solvency certificate in the first place itself is enough to blacklist him. Therefore, even assuming that he owns the property bearing No.2-247-5 as certified in the second solvency certificate, that does not absolve the petitioner of his blatant act of trying to mislead the respondents by obtaining and submitting a false solvency certificate by including therein an extent of Acs.6.90 cents of land which was already sold by his family. Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate on the

¶35

correctness or otherwise of allegation No.1.

¶36

For the above-mentioned reasons, I am of the opinion that the decision taken by respondent No.3 to blacklist the petitioner for a period of two years does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 19.05.2010, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.14579 of 2010, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.14579 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.2681 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶39

(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)

¶40

Date: 23.12.2010 VGB

B. Subba Reddy v. The Chief General Manager (Operations) A.P. Southern

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Subba Reddy v. The Chief General Manager (Operations) A.P. Southern

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sri Minerals, rep. by its Managing Partner, Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

M.Ram Kumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Darshan Vs The Addl. Asst. Engineer, Operation

Kotteti Rani Vs The District Collector and District Programme co-ordinator

Barla Chandra Rao Vs The District Collector and District Programme co-ordinator

Mudatha Ramana Vs The District Collector and District Programme Coordinator