Dismissed

Visakha Parisudhya Paniwarala v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC16 Mar 2011WP/6699/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a tender notice for mechanized cleaning of bus stations was dismissed. The Court held that adopting advanced technology is a valid policy decision not subject to judicial interference absent arbitrariness or violation of rights.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and subsequent interim relief application were dismissed.

Visakha Parisudhya Paniwarala Vs Andhra Pradesh… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

*** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY**

¶2

+ WRIT PETITION No.6699 of 2011

¶3

%16.03.2011

¶4

# Visakha Parisudhya Paniwarala Seva Sangham

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

$ A.P.S.R.T.C. and another

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Y. Sudhakar

¶10

Counsel for Respondents: None

¶11

<Gist :

¶12

>Head Note:

¶13

? Cases referred:

¶14

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

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.6699 of 2011

¶16

Date:16.03.2011

¶17

Between:

¶18

Visakha Parisudhya Paniwarala Seva Sangham

¶19

..... Petitioner

¶20

AND

¶21

A.P.S.R.T.C. and another

¶22

.....Respondents

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Y. Sudhakar

¶24

Counsel for Respondents: None

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the tender notice dated 28.02.2011 issued by respondent No.2 in respect of works relating to sweeping, cleaning of rest rooms and drainage cleaning etc. in Dwaraka Bus Station Complex, Visakhapatnam.

¶27

I have heard Sri Y.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶28

The petitioner is a registered association under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. It is averred that the petitioner association comprises 26 scavengers and 12 toilet cleaners and they are discharging their duties for the last twenty years

¶29

at Dwaraka Bus Station Complex, Visakhapatnam. That the scavengers are engaged through a contractor, by name, Yamini Engineering and are being paid minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by the contractor. The petitioner association felt aggrieved by the impugned tender notice, which provided for cleaning of the bus stations, yards, platforms etc. through mechanised system. According to the petitioner association, as the contractor under whom its members are working does not have the required machinery and is not eligible for filing tender, its members are deprived of their livelihood by the changed policy of respondent No.1 Corporation.

¶30

In my opinion, the method and manner in which the cleaning requires to be undertaken in the bus stations completely fall in the realm of the policy decision of the Corporation. This Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected to interfere with such policy decisions unless they are patently arbitrary or in violation of statutory or constitutional rights of any of the citizens. By insisting on mechanised system of cleaning, respondent No.1 Corporation obviously wants to introduce advanced technology by replacing traditional and obsolete methods. While such methods certainly have an impact on employment, the State requires to address these problems. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that any policy evolved by the State governs the activities of respondent No.1 Corporation pertaining to this particular field. Though the petitioner placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.30 MA dated 18.01.2000, a perusal of the same would show that it pertains to the municipalities and municipal corporations. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of respondent No.1 Corporation to introduce a mechanised system for cleaning the bus stations and toilets runs counter to the State’s policy or any of the statutory or constitutional provisions.

¶31

In this view of the matter, no interference is called for with the impugned tender notice and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.8336 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶33

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16^th March, 2011 Note: L.R. Copies to be marked. (B/o) GHN

Visakha Parisudhya Paniwarala v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Visakha Parisudhya Paniwarala v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

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

M/s Surya Waters Vs A.P Eastern Power Distribution Co-Ltd

Sathi Ammi Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs the Deputy Director of Fisheries

B.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs State of a.P., represented by its Secretary

Bharat Food Products, a Partnership Firm, Siricilla Road, Vs District Collector

M/s.Devatha Samkshema Sangham Vs TheSuperintending Engineer