The High Court dismissed a writ appeal by a society claiming it was entitled to sanitation and gardening allotments without tenders. The court held the single judge was correct, as displaced members could still bid in tenders, and found no merit in the appeal.
No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Writ Appeal No. 971 of 2012
DATED:7.8.2012
Between: Jai Bheem Karmika Sankshema Sangham
… Appellant
And
Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy vari Devasthanam, Annavaram and others.
…. Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Writ Appeal No.971 of 2012
Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.7.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 16928 of 2012.
The appellant-writ petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition before the Hon’ble Single Judge seeking directions to the
1st respondent-Devasthanam to allot the works of sanitation, house keeping, gardening on Satyagiri Hills in Harihara Sadan and Vishnu Sadan to the appellant without calling for tenders by considering the representation of the appellant-society. The appellant claims to be a society consisting of members displaced by the 1st respondent-Devasthanam from the lands in Survey No.118/1 of Bendapudi Village to an extent of 300 acres, which were earlier in the occupation of such persons. The appellant further claimed that the lands were being used for growing cashew nut trees with the financial assistance of East Godavari District Scheduled Caste Cooperative Society till they
were evicted in December, 2006. Appellant further stated that even though the respondent-authorities promised to pay compensation and also to provide employment opportunities to the kith and kin of such displaced persons, the authorities have not kept up their promise. The appellant-society also made a representation to the Collector on 27.2.2012 to allot sanitary works to the members of the society, but, the authorities without taking any action on the said representation, issued the notification dated 24.5.2012 calling for tenders for allotment of sanitation, house keeping and gardening works.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondents before the Hon’ble Single Judge.
It would appear from the record that compensation amounts were paid to the encroachers, who have grown trees and the same is also evident from the counter affidavit filed before the Hon’ble Single Judge. The Hon’ble Single Judge after considering the facts of the case, found that the material on record does not disclose any enforceable right for the appellant-society to insist on the works in question being allotted to it in deviation to the normal procedure or without calling for competitive tenders. His Lordship further held that the offer to match the lowest tender in the auction cannot be preferred in view of the positive intervention of the rights of third parties who participated in the tender process and the only concessional treatment that can be given to the members of the appellant-society is to the extent of displaced encroachers recognized by the survey team and the revenue authorities with
reference to either the three identified packages indicated in the additional counter affidavit of the 1st respondent or such other works which may arise for execution within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent, which can be competently executed by such displaced encroachers among the members of the appellantsociety. On the basis of the facts placed before him, His Lordship further held that the 1st respondent-Devasthanam shall positively consider the entrustment of any of the three identified packages stated in the additional counter affidavit or any other works that arise in future which can be competently handled and executed by the displaced encroachers among the members of the appellantsociety in terms of the statement made in the communication from the Executive Officer to the District Collector dated 13.10.2010. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant filed the present appeal.
It appears from the facts as pleaded before us that the appellant cannot improve the facts. In our considered opinion, we find that His Lordship has dealt with the matter extensively. Further, the works in question are divided into two categories; one skilled and the other is un-skilled. Therefore, for implementing the scheme which has been taken up by the 1st respondentDevasthanam, if any tenders are floated by the 1st respondentDevasthanam, the members of the petitioner-society will also get a chance to participate in the same and they can also offer their bid. In view of that, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. Accordingly, we do not find that there is any merit in this appeal.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 7-8-2012 pnb
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court found any merit in the writ appeal challenging the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition seeking allotment of works without tender.
Whether the appellant-society had any enforceable right to insist on works being allotted without competitive tenders.
Whether the appellate court found any illegality or irregularity in the single judge's order passed.
Jai Bheem Karmika Sankshema Sangham
Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy vari Devasthanam
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
