Dismissed

Tejomoi Mahila Dwacra Group , v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC27 Nov 2014WP/36177/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed to set aside a tender notice for sanitation work, holding that the petitioners availed an incorrect remedy by filing successive petitions after being directed to make representations, and granted liberty for contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to avail the remedy of contempt proceedings.

Tejomoi Mahila Dwacra Group , Vs The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36177 of 2014 Date:27.11.2014

¶2

Between:

¶3

Tejomoi Mahila DWACRA Group, reptd by its President-Gurugumalli Lakshim, W/o Kanaka Raju and two others.

¶4

..... Petitioners

¶5

And:

¶6

The Commissoner, Industrial Area Local Authority (IALA), Vijayawada and two others.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Bujji Babu Davuluri

¶9

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.Roy Reddy

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside tender notice No.01/IALA/Ja.AA/V/2014-15, dated 19.11.2014, of respondent No.1, whereunder he has invited tenders for undertaking sanitation work in Autonagar of Vijayawada.

¶12

I have heard Sri Bujji Babu Davuluri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APIIC.

¶13

The petitioners, who claimed to be undertaking sanitation work for a number of years in Autonagar, Vijayawada, filed Writ Petition No.29532 of 2014 questioning the proposed action of the respondents in calling for tenders for sanitation work in Autonagar, Vijayawada. This Court, while taking note of the fact that the period of agreement for which the petitioners have

¶14

been entrusted with the sanitation work has come to an end on 30.09.2014, disposed of the said Writ Petition, by order, dated 01.10.2014, with liberty to the petitioners to make representation to the respondent-authorities for appropriate relief within two weeks and further directed the respondent-authorities to consider the continuance of the petitioners’ services and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter.

¶15

In my opinion, the petitioners cannot be permitted to file successive Writ Petitions for the same relief. When the respondents have attempted to call for tenders, the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.29532 of 2014. If the respondents have not considered the petitioners’ case, as directed by this Court, the appropriate remedy for them is to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioners have availed a wrong remedy.

¶16

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of contempt proceedings.

¶17

As a sequel, WPMP.No.45296 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.

¶18

__________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 27^th November 2014 DR

Tejomoi Mahila Dwacra Group , v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejomoi Mahila Dwacra Group , v. The Commissioner

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

Sandraboyina Guravaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Shakeera Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Kola Kulasekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Krishna Murthy, Vs The Apsrtc

Thokala Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Ghantasala Nageswararao Vs The District Collector