Allowed

M/s.Thattekunta Wadder v. The Commissioner Jangaon Municipality

Telangana HC2 Jan 2012WP/30081/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by successful bidders under the BRGF scheme, the Hon'ble Court directed the respondent to accept fresh demand drafts and enter into a contract agreement after the previous objection to the tender was withdrawn, as the original drafts had been encashed to realize the value during pending litigation which is now resolved.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Respondent directed to accept fresh demand drafts and enter into agreement.

M/s.Thattekunta Wadder Vs The Commissioner Jangaon… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 30081 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in not entering into agreement with latest drawn demand drafts in the form of earnest money deposit (EMD) in connection with works under BRGF scheme, as illegal, arbitrary under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and direct the respondent to enter into agreement with the petitioners.

¶4

The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are:

¶5

The petitioners are successful bidders of contract works proposed by the respondent under BRGF Scheme. The works pertain to laying of C C. Roads and construction of C.C. drains, etc., in the Jangaon Municipality. While so, the tender notification was challenged by filing W.P.No.26003 of 2010 and an interim stay was granted by this Court in the said writ petition. It is alleged that when the petitioners produced demand drafts for the purpose of entering into agreement for the contract works, the respondent did not accept the same stating that the writ petition filed challenging the tenders is pending. The said writ petition was dismissed later on as withdrawn and thereafter, the respondent asked the petitioners to produce all the original documents by

¶6

23.08.2011, including the demand drafts, for entering into agreement. The petitioners produced photostat copies of demand drafts stating that since the respondent did not accept the demand drafts during pendency of the writ petition, they had to cancel the demand drafts as they were valid only for six months, and would become invalid if they are not realized within the period. It is alleged that when the petitioners went to submit fresh demand drafts, the respondent is not accepting them and is not entering into agreement of contract. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are successful bidders and they were asked to produce the demand drafts to enter into agreement, that when the petitioner produced the demand drafts, the respondents did not accept the same on the ground that writ petition No.26003 of 2010, which was filed challenging the tenders, was pending, that subsequently the said writ petition was withdrawn later, and therefore, the agreement has to be entered into with fresh demand drafts and hence, prays to direct the respondent to enter into agreement.

¶8

On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioners have not submitted the original demand drafts, but produced photocopies of the demand drafts and that the demand drafts drawn earlier for the purpose of entering into

¶9

contract, were encashed by the petitioners by canceling the demand drafts, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to produce fresh demand drafts and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶10

It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioners became the successful bidders in pursuance of tender notification and they were directed to produce demand drafts, for the purpose of earnest money deposit, to enter into the agreement. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners produced the demand drafts and submitted to the respondents, but the respondents did not receive the same as there was a pending litigation in this Court challenging the tender notification, and the said case was withdrawn later. Therefore, in terms of the contract, the agreement is to be entered into between the petitioners and the respondent. In view of the fact that a litigation was pending at the time production of the original demand drafts to the respondents, the petitioners seem to have encashed the demand drafts by canceling them. It is right in canceling the demand drafts because the said litigation was still pending at that time and the said demand drafts will not be valid for more than six months and therefore, the petitioners rightly cancelled the same and realized the amounts.

¶11

In view of the fact that the writ petition filed challenging the tender notification was withdrawn, there is no impediment for the respondent to enter into

¶12

agreement. Therefore, the respondent is directed to accept the fresh demand drafts to be produced by the petitioners for the purpose of entering into the agreement in pursuance of notification issued by respondent.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

____________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶15

02^nd January, 2012 KSM

M/s.Thattekunta Wadder v. The Commissioner Jangaon Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Thattekunta Wadder v. The Commissioner Jangaon Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

A.S.Prabhu, Vs The Special Officer and Competent Authority

Bhashyam Srinivas Vs The Commissioner

M/s. Siddu Technologies Vs Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Rajana Suryanarayana Vs The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (Vuda)

Chakali Narahari, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaili Gardenia Residents Welfare Association, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation