Dismissed

Mohd. Waheeduddin v. The Superintending Engineer, Tribal Welfare

Telangana HC25 Nov 2013WP/24159/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a notice for mark-out as illegal, the High Court held that the petitioner's grievance was redressed by a subsequent letter from Respondent No.4. The petitioner was permitted to proceed with the work as per the agreement and tender notification.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach Respondent No.4 for execution of work as per the agreement and tender notification.

Mohd. Waheeduddin Vs The Superintending Engineer… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

W.P.No.24159 of 2013

¶3

Date : 25-11-2013

¶4

Between: Mohd. Waheeduddin .. Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Warangal and others .. Respondents

¶5

Counsel for petitioner : Sri K. Venumadhav Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Social Welfare

¶6

The Court made the following :

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare notice dated 3-7-2013 of respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to take the mark-out from respondent No.3 for construction of Staff quarters to the Ashram’s High School for Girls at Bhainsa village and Mandal, Adilabad District, contrary to e-procurement tender notification dated 12-112012 called for the work of providing additional infrastructure facilities to the said school and agreement dated 6-3-2013, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶9

Respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit. Along with the counter affidavit, he has enclosed letter No.DB4/90/2013, dated 6-8-2013, addressed by him to the petitioner wherein he has inter alia stated as under :

¶10

“Based on the instructions of Engineer-in-chief, T.W., Hyderabad you are instructed take the mark out as per the plan enclose in your agreement. You should take mark out within (03) days from the date of this notice, failing which this office will be constrained for cancellation of the work under 60(a) of APDS.”

¶11

The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare submitted that in view of letter dated 6-8-2013 referred to above which is subsequent to letter dated 3-7-2013, the petitioner’s grievance, if any, stands redressed as

¶12

respondent No.4 in the said letter has clearly requested the petitioner to take the mark out as per the plan enclosed to the agreement. As the petitioner wants execution of the work as per the tender notification and the plan enclosed to the agreement, his grievance stands redressed. The petitioner is therefore permitted to approach respondent No.4 for execution of the work as per the e-procurement tender notification and also the agreement.

¶13

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶14

As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.29720/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶15

Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶16

Date : 25-11-2013 AM

Mohd. Waheeduddin v. The Superintending Engineer, Tribal Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Waheeduddin v. The Superintending Engineer, Tribal Welfare

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

Nune Rama Krishna,S/o.Pullaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gundreddy Narayanamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl.Secretary

Gangavaram Matyakarula Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kallepally Venkatesham Vs The District Collector

Subhash Mandal Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Thammana Manikanta Karthik, S/o Manga Raju Vs District Collector