Dismissed

Y.Venkata Ramana, v. The Regional Joint Director

Telangana HC6 Jul 2012WP/20383/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a new tender notice issued after the petitioner's previous contract term had expired. The court held that as the contract had ended before the notice, the petitioner could not question the notice itself but was at liberty to seek damages for any loss sustained.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and miscellaneous petitions disposed of as infructuous; no order as to costs.

Y.Venkata Ramana, Vs The Regional Joint… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20383 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed questioning the tender notice in RC.No.20/2012 dated 29.06.2012 issued by the Integrated Child Development Officer, ICDS Project, Nakkapalli.

¶5

The petitioner claims that he was awarded the contract for transportation of provisions from the office of the 3^rd respondent to Anganwadi Kendras in the jurisdiction of Nakkapalli, ICDS Project, for the year 2011-2012. The contract period commenced from 06.04.2011 till the end of April, 2012. While so, through show cause notice dated 02.05.2011, the contract of the petitioner was cancelled by the 3^rd respondent. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14022 of 2011 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 27.02.2012, disposed of the said writ petition setting aside the show cause notice and permitting the petitioner to execute his contract for the rest of the period awarded to him. A further observation was made in the said writ petition that the petitioner shall represent to the official respondents concerning any loss sustained by him due to the denial of an opportunity for him to execute the contract for the entire period as awarded.

¶6

In this writ petition, the petitioner states that in pursuance of the order dated 27.02.2012 in W.P.No.14022 of 2011, he made a representation on 09.03.2012 regarding the execution of the contract for the rest of the period awarded, and the same was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent-Project Director, District Women & Child Development

¶7

Agency, Visakhapatnam, by the 1^st respondent-Regional Joint Director, Women Development & Child Welfare, Visakhapatnam, through Memo No.370/B1/2003, dated 15.03.2012, with a direction to take appropriate action. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering his claim, the impugned tender notice dated 29.06.2012 is issued inviting bids for transportation of provisions from ICDS godown to Anganwadi Kendras.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for the respondents.

¶9

S ri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that inasmuch as the earlier contract was cancelled without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14022 of 2011, which was disposed of on 27.02.2012. He further submitted that in pursuance of the observations made in the said order dated 27.02.2012 in W.P.No.14022 of 2011, the petitioner filed a representation to the respondents, but without considering the same, the respondents issued the impugned tender notice illegally.

¶10

It is to be noticed that the contract awarded to the petitioner has come to an end by the end of April, 2012. Since the impugned notice was issued on 29.06.2012 i.e., after expiry of the contract period awarded to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot question the same on the ground that the representation filed by him is pending consideration. However, if the petitioner feels that he sustained loss, he is at liberty to seek appropriate damages. Further, pursuant to the impugned notice, if there are any applications claiming the contract quoting the same price as that of the price quoted by the petitioner, I

¶11

am sure the respondents will consider the claim of the petitioner keeping in mind the service rendered by him on the earlier occasion.

¶12

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶13

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.Ps., filed in this writ petition stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶14

___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J

¶15

06.07.2012 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow B/o v v

Y.Venkata Ramana, v. The Regional Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Venkata Ramana, v. The Regional Joint Director

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

E v Satish Kumar, Vs The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

Shaik Ahmed Hussain Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

E.Chinna Peddiah, S/o Venkatiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gayathri Enterprises Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Attilli Kamakshamma, Vs The Commissioner

M/s. Golden Hair Company Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh