Dismissed

Darsi Gram Panchayat v. The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC8 Jul 2011WP/9713/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the allotment of a water treatment plant contract to a private firm without a tender. The Court found that a valid tender notice was issued and the contract was awarded to the only technically qualified bidder, and the plant was already functioning.

What did the court decide?

Main Writ Petition dismissed; Interim order dated 29.04.2008 vacated; Miscellaneous petitions dismissed in consequence.

Darsi Gram Panchayat Vs The Government of a.P., Rep… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.9713 OF 2008

¶3

DATED 8TH JULY, 2011

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

Darsi Gram Panchayat, Darsi Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, rep. by its President Kamepalli Haribabu, S/o Rama Chandraiah, Aged 45 years.

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.9713 OF 2008

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner Gram Panchayat of Darsi Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District, is that the Executive Engineer (Panchayat Raj), Rural Water Supply Division, Ongole, the second respondent, did not notify Darsi Village in the tender notification dated 18.01.2008 issued for the purpose of undertaking construction of a water tank and water filter plant and that the said work was being allotted on the basis of private negotiations contrary to law. A consequential direction was sought to the Government to see that a tender notification was issued in this regard for undertaking construction of a water tank and water filter plant under the supervision of the District Collector, Prakasam, and the Government.

¶13

This Court, by order dated 29.04.2008, directed the second respondent not to finalise the construction of the water tank under private negotiations.

¶14

The respondent authorities filed WVMP No.2354 of 2008 to vacate the said order.

¶15

With the consent of the learned counsel, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal.

¶16

Perusal of the counter filed by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply, Martur, Prakasam District, reflects as under:- An amount of Rs.18,464.62 lakhs was sanctioned for establishing water purifying plants in Fluoride affected areas. Under this protected water supply scheme, treatment plants were to be established in such areas.

¶17

In so far as Darsi Village is concerned, tender notice dated 23.04.2007 was said to have been issued and basing upon this tender process, one M/s.SMAAT Aqua Technologies Private Limited was stated to have been awarded the rate contract for manufacture, supply, delivery, installation and commission of the fluoride removal water treatment plants. Further, by the time this Court passed an interim order on 29.04.2008, it is stated that the installation had been completed and operation of the treatment plants had started.

¶18

The letter dated 11.11.2010 addressed by the Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Division, Ongole, to the learned Government Pleader also states to the effect that the plant is functioning successfully.

¶19

As the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the averment made in the counter that the respondents had followed due process while awarding the contract, the records were directed to be produced. Today, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj produced the record, which demonstrates that tender notice bearing CT Notice No.2/2007-08 was issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Water Supply Administration, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad, on 23.04.2007 and was published in Eenadu Newspaper on the same day. The tenders in response thereto were to be submitted by 07.05.2007 and were to be opened at 04.00 P.M. on the same day. The record further reflects that nine applications were received for issuing tender schedules but only eight tenders were submitted. Out of these, only one was found to be technically qualified, being M/s.SMAAT Aqua Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad. The contract was accordingly awarded in its favour.

¶20

The aforestated facts clearly demonstrate that the petitioner Gram Panchayat’s grievance that the respondent authorities did not follow the due process in awarding the contract for undertaking construction of the water treatment plant is without basis. Further, as the said plant has already been installed and is stated to be

¶21

functioning successfully, no case is made out for interference by this Court in the present writ petition.

¶22

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 29.04.2008 shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions in the writ petition shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.

¶23

SANJAY KUMAR, J.

¶24

8^TH JULY, 2011. PGS/VGSR

Darsi Gram Panchayat v. The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darsi Gram Panchayat v. The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

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. M.Mahalakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammad Sadiq Vs The Commissioenr

Islamia Education Society Vs S.G. Haqani

Golla Lokeswaramma Vs The District Collector

Vendra Ganesh Mrutyunjaya Venkata Ramakrishnarao Vs The Joint Collector

Arji Shankar rao, Vs Divisional Engineer-Operation, ZoneI