Disposed

Jhansi Laxmi Bai Dwakra Mahila Sangam v. The State of Telangana Rep. by Principal Secretary

Telangana HC7 Jul 2015WP/14262/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging the illegal nomination award of sanitation contracts to a fourth respondent without public auction. The court disposed of the petitions at the admission stage, directing the respondent corporation to conduct a public auction and finalize tenders before July 31, 2015, without interfering with the contract's continuation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conduct public auction and entrust work to successful bidder by 31.07.2015; no quashing of existing contract.

Jhansi Laxmi Bai Dwakra Mahila Sangam Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.13916 and 14262 of 2015 Date: 07.07.2015

¶2

W.P.No.13916 of 2015

¶3

Between:

¶4

The Kothagudem Municipal Sanitation Contract Workers Labour Contract Mutually Aided Cooperative Society (Macs) Limited, Kothagudem, Khammam district, rep.by President A.Rama Rao, S/o. Durgaiah, Aged 41 years, r/o.2-2-157, Budidagadda, Kothagudem, Khammam District and another.

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

AND The State of Telangana, rep.by Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.13916 and 14262 of 2015

¶10

COMMON ORDER:

¶11

The issue in these writ petitions is one and the same, both the writ petitions are heard together and with the consent of learned counsels for the petitioners as well as learned counsels for the respondents, both writ petitions are disposed of finally at the admission stage. W.P.No.13916 of 2015

¶12

2. Petitioners claim that petitioners 1 and 2 are the registered societies consisting of 96 and 50 members respectively. They have been doing sanitation works since long time. The respondent-corporation has been allotting works to their societies. Petitioners societies executed the work till recently. While so, on 29.04.2015, Chair Person of 3^rd respondent Municipality passed resolution entrusting the same work to 4^th respondent for a period of three months.

¶13

W.P.No.14262 of 2015

¶14

3. Petitioner claims that it is a Dwakra Mahila Sangam consisting of 26 members registered as a Society on 01.08.2000. They have been doing sanitation works since the year 1999. The respondent-corporation has been allotting works to Sangam. Petitioners’ society executed the work till recently. While so, on 29.04.2015, the Chair Person of 3^rd respondent Municipality passed resolution entrusting the same work to 4^th respondent for a period of three months. Aggrieved thereby these writ petitions are instituted.

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was illegal on the part of the respondent-municipality to ignore the petitioners to award the contract to 4^th respondent. He further submits that if respondent-municipality wants to entrust this nature of work, they should go for public auction and in terms of the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 10.03.2000 among various works entrusted by the Municipality, at least 15% of the work should be reserved entrustment to the individuals or societies of weaker sections belonging to SCs/STs and Vadderas. Without following norms prescribed by the Government and without going for public auction contract was awarded by way of nomination and the same is ex facie illegal.

¶16

5. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2^nd respondent in W.P.No.14262 of 2015.

¶17

6. Learned standing counsel submits that there were illegalities committed by the petitioner societies and pending investigation and rectifying the illegalities, 3^rd respondent passed resolution to grant contract to 4^th respondent on nomination basis for a period of three months. On instructions, learned counsel submits that as stated by the deponent in para-6 of the counter-affidavit in W.P.No.14262 of 2015, the Municipality shall be conducting public auction to award contract.

¶18

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners extensively made submissions contending that petitioners were illegally ignored and there were no illegalities committed by the petitioners and to award the contract to the 4^th respondent, a story was invented. On the contrary, learned standing counsel vehemently contends that there were illegalities committed by the petitioners. Contribution under ESI Scheme was not made and issue was under investigation. Pending investigation, the contract was awarded to 4^th respondent, so that the works of the Municipality do not suffer.

¶19

8. The awarding of contract concerning any activity of the Municipality has to be in accordance with the procedure envisaged and without following due process, no contract can be awarded more so by way of nomination and awarding of contract by nomination to 4^th respondent was erroneous.

¶20

9. Though awarding of contract by nomination was illegal, since the term of the contract is going to end by 31^st July, 2015, I am not inclined to interfere with the continuation of the contract at this stage. However, respondent-corporation shall take immediate steps to conduct public auction and finalize the tenders and entrust the work by following due process to the successful bidder as expeditiously as possible and entire exercise shall be completed before end of 31^st July, 2015. In view of the above no expression is made on merits of the rival contentions and they are left open.

¶21

10. With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

__________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶23

Date : 07.07.2015 kkm

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION NOs.13916 & 14262 of 2015

¶26

Date: 07.07.2015

¶27

Kkm

Jhansi Laxmi Bai Dwakra Mahila Sangam v. The State of Telangana Rep. by Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhansi Laxmi Bai Dwakra Mahila Sangam v. The State of Telangana Rep. by Principal Secretary

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

Perla SambaMurthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mawaram Vishnuvardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kothapalli Saibaba, Vs The State of Telangana

Yenni Venkatesh, S/o.late Appala Suryanarayana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Ali Akber, Vs State of Telangana

P. Vikaram Kumar S/o late P. Prabhakar Rao, Vs The Managing Director