Allowed

Y.Narayana v. Northern Power Distribution company Limited, Warangal

Telangana HC18 Mar 2010WP/6168/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a tender condition mandating EPF registration. The Court held that requiring such registration as a pre-condition was arbitrary since the tenderers needed 20 contracts to meet the 20-worker threshold for mandatory registration, and directed the respondents to consider tenders without this condition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners' tenders without insisting on compliance with Condition No. 4.iii of the tender notice regarding EPF registration.

Y.Narayana Vs Northern Power Distribution… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.6168 OF 2010

¶3

Dated 1 8 th March, 2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Y.Narayana and two others …Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

Northern Power Distribution Company

¶8

Limited and another …Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners : Sri P.Giri Krishna Counsel for the respondents : Sri O.Manohar Reddy

¶10

The Court made the following

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The petitioners, who are electrical contractors, filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by Condition No.4.iii of tender notice issued by the respondents calling for tenders for manning and maintenance of 33/11 K.V.Sub-Stations in Adilabad Circle for the year 2010-2011. The petitioners pleaded that insisting on employees’ provident fund code number

¶13

(EPF Code) as a pre-condition for considering the tenders is arbitrary. According to the petitioners for maintenance of E-Sub-Station, about 5 labourers are required and that unless one tenderer gets four works, it will not be necessary for him to get himself registered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”), under which registration is compulsory where a minimum of 20 workmen are engaged by the contractor.

¶14

After hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that the grievance of the petitioners appears to be justified. It is not in dispute that under the Act for getting the establishment registered, a minimum of 20 persons need to be employed. Unless the petitioners are awarded such number of works, as may be requiring employment of not less than 20 workmen, there will be no necessity for the tenderers to get registration in advance.

¶15

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in the

¶16

following terms.

¶17

(1) The respondents are directed to receive and consider the petitioners’ tenders without insisting on compliance with Condition No. 4.iii of the tender notice.

¶18

(2) If each of the petitioners is awarded such number of works as may be requiring engagement of not less than 20 workmen, the petitioners shall get their establishments registered within a period of one month from the date of acceptance of their tenders and

¶19

(3) if proof of registration is not produced before the respondents within the above stipulated time, the respondents shall be free to cancel the allotment of work.

¶20

As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.7934 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶22

Dated 18^th March, 2010 vrn

Y.Narayana v. Northern Power Distribution company Limited, Warangal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Narayana v. Northern Power Distribution company Limited, Warangal

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

Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissoner, Enforcement

M/s. Jahnavi Enterprises, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University

Dogga v. George Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Dr.Syed Jaweed Muneer Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Vittanala Rama Tulasi, D/o. Guttula Satyanarayana Vs The Superintendent of Police

Akula Rajamallu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh