Dismissed

V. Hanumanth Rao, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principle Secretary

Telangana HC17 Aug 2015PIL/171/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a PIL challenging the disqualification of a contractor for public tenders as illegal. Finding that agreements were already executed and works commenced in the larger public interest, the court declined further inquiry into the grievance.

What did the court decide?

PIL dismissed; no legal protection granted regarding the validity of the contracts or tender actions.

V. Hanumanth Rao, Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶3

PIL No. 171 OF 2015

¶4

17-08-2015

¶5

Between:

¶6

V. Hanumantha Rao

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj Department, Hyderabad, Telangana State and three others

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶13

PIL No. 171 OF 2015

¶14

PC: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶16

The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not disqualifying respondent No.4 from participating in tender notice dated 29-01-2015 issued by respondent No.3 for the works (1) R/F Mallavai to Revelli (NIT No. 721) (2) R/F Mallavai to Kethapalli (NIT No. 724) and (3) Sarampet to Indhurthi (NIT No. 719) in Nalgonda District as illegal and unconstitutional.

¶17

The petitioner through the instant public interest litigation (PIL) complains that respondent No.4 does not satisfy the eligibility criteria stipulated in the tender notification dated 29-01-2015 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 in spite of having knowledge of this ineligibility, are considering the single bid offered by respondent No.4 and are processing the same to the next stage.

¶18

On 13-07-2015, at the request of learned Government Pleader to get instructions, the PIL was adjourned. Today, on instructions, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have evaluated the valid tenders received and on being satisfied with the offers, contracts have been awarded and finally, the following agreements are entered into with

¶19

respondent No.4:

¶20

“NIT.No.719 - Agreement No.91/2015-16, Dt.15.06.2015 NIT.No.721 - Agreement No.90/2015-16, Dt.15.06.2015 NIT.No.724 - Agreement No.92/2015-16, Dt.15.06.2015”

¶21

Having regard to the fact that agreements dated 15-06-2015 have already been entered into with respondent No.4 and, as submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the site is handed over to respondent No.4 for commencement of work, and in the larger public interest to complete the work in time, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL.

¶22

PIL is dismissed.

¶23

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶24

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶25

________________________ S.V. BHATT, J 17-08-2015 ks

V. Hanumanth Rao, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principle Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Hanumanth Rao, v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principle Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bala Padmaja Sirisha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Anti Corruption People Awareness Society (Regd.No.477/2013) Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B.M.Swami Dass Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Ghani Vs The Principal Secretary

Vaayu Vision Educational Society, Vs The State of Telangana

Jadhav Heera Bai, Vs The District Collector

Tinker Basheer Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sure Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

Sri. K.Mallaya S/o.K.Narsanna, Aged about 38 years, Vs B.Narayana Reddy

Prof G.Laxman Vs State of Telangana

Shri Gilla Purushotham Vs State of Telangana, Department of Municipal Administration

Vuppala Prabhakar s/o Satyam Vs The State of Telangana

G.Nanjundappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citizens Forum for Equity and Justice, Vs The State of Telangana