Dismissed

M/s. Saketh Man Power and Technical Services v. Karimnagar Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC19 Apr 2012WP/10772/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging tender notice conditions. Finding no evidence that petitioners applied for the works as required by tender rules, the Court held they had no locus standi to challenge the notification, though they were allowed to execute awarded contracts if any.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed for non-application and non-compliance with tender notification requirements unless a valid contract exists.

M/s. Saketh Man Power and Technical… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10772 of 2012

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.10774 of 2012 and

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.10792 of 2012

¶5

Date: April 19, 2012

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.10772 of 2012: Between: M/s. Saketh Man Power & Technical Services, Represented by its Managing Partner Ch. Hari Shanker. … Petitioner

¶7

**And 1. Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Karimnagar & 3 others. … Respondents * * ***

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.10774 of 2012: Between: M/s. Bhavani Electrical & Engineering Works, Represented by its Proprietor M. Balakrishna. … Petitioner

¶9

and

¶10

**1. Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Karimnagar & 3 others. … Respondents * * *** WRIT PETITION No.10792 of 2012: Between: Teja Sai S.C., B.C., Labour Contract Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society Ltd., Represented by its President Ch. Hari Krishna. … Petitioner

¶11

And

¶12

1. Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Karimnagar & 3 others. … Respondents

¶13

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.10772 of 2012

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.10774 of 2012 and WRIT PETITION No.10792 of 2012

¶17

COMMON ORDER:

¶18

These three writ petitions are filed questioning the tender notices dated 16.3.2012 in respect of three works.

¶19

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent authorities have stipulated conditions which are not necessary for the purpose of execution of the works in question. The matter underwent several adjournments on various grounds. When the matter was taken up yesterday for hearing, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner never applied for the works in question and without even applying for the same, they approached this Court.

¶20

3. On verification of the affidavits filed by the

¶21

petitioners it is found that there is no such averment that the petitioners have made an application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that 19.4.2012 being the last day for making the application, the petitioners have made the applications yesterday. But nothing is placed before this Court to show that they have made applications in any form nor they have filed any affidavit to show that they had made applications.

¶22

4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he had instructions that the petitioners have not made any applications.

¶23

5. Therefore, in the absence of any applications pursuant to the tender notification issued by the respondent Corporation, the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to contend that the contents in the tender notification are illegal.

¶24

6. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed, however, it is observed that if the petitioners are having valid contract to be executed pursuant to the tender notification awarded to them till end of April, 2012, the execution of works by the petitioners shall not be disturbed, provided the petitioners execute the works as per the terms and conditions of the tender notification. No order as to costs.

¶25

_____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J.

¶26

Date: April 19, 2012.

¶27

Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. //B.O.// BSB

¶28

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.10772 of 2012

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.10774 of 2012 and WRIT PETITION No.10792 of 2012

¶31

Date: April 19, 2012

¶32

BSB

M/s. Saketh Man Power and Technical Services v. Karimnagar Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Saketh Man Power and Technical Services v. Karimnagar Municipal 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

Sri Rayala Raghu Vs The Greatr Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Galla Janakiram, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S Seetha Ratnam Mankiyamba Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Bhavani Electrical and Engineering Works, Vs Karimnagar Municipal Corporation

Boggarapu Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs Proddatur Municipality

K.Hemanth Kumar Vs Sri Neela Kanta Reddy