Disposed

P. Venkateswara Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC29 Nov 2016PIL/29/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench disposed of PIL regarding alleged irregularities in government tendering. Court held that as major penalty proceedings were initiated for enquiry reports, no further directions on penalties could be issued before the Commissioner (Vigilance) opinion is awaited.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation closed as major penalty proceedings initiated; no further orders necessary.

P. Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.29 OF 2014

¶5

ORDER : ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)

¶6

The petitioners have come up with the present Public Interest Litigation seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to take action against the respondents 4 to 6 for certain alleged irregularities committed by them.

¶7

Heard Mrs. B. Rachana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General for the State of A.P., Mr. G. Bala Rangaiah, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, and Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5.

¶8

In a report dated 28.09.2012, the Director General (Vigilance and Enforcement), pointed out certain irregularities against the respondents 4 and 5. The abstract of the recommendations, made by the Director General, shown in his report is as follows:

¶9

“4. ABSTRACT RECOMMENDATIONS:

¶10

Sl.No.	Name & Designation of the officer	Nature of irregularity	Action proposed
1.	Sri M.Vijaya Bhaskar, the then Dy. Executive Engineer, APVVP, Ongole. Presently working as Executive Engineer APMSIDC, Eluru.	i. Violated guidelines laid down in GO Ms. No.94, I&CAD Dept., Dt:01-07-2003 in invitation of tenders without giving wide publicity in daily news papers thereby fair competition is not invited between Contractors and the Department is deprived of competitive prices which is a loss to Government exchequer, collected insufficient EMD and given	Stringent disciplinary action.

VRS, J & GSP, J

PIL No.29/2014

	insufficient time to Contractors for submission of tender documents. ii. Without opening the sealed tender cover, tenders were finalized for the work “Leaky roof repairs and special repairs to Nurse quarters and Class-IV quarters in DSR Head Quarters Hospital”. This shows that the work was awarded to the Contractor of his choice by managing the other Contractors. iii. Issued tender notice on date of opening tender for the work “Raising of Compound wall at CHC Repalle, Guntur District”. This shows his malafide intention of the charged officer to award the works to the chosen Contractor. iv. Collected signed empty Contractor’s letter heads and kept in the files for the reasons best known to him.
2. Sri L. Ajay Babu, the then Executive Engineer, APVVP, Hyderabad. (At present under suspension)	Accepted & finalized the tenders invited by Sri M. Vijaya Bhaskar, the then Dy.EE., APVVP though the tenders were invited without following the procedures laid down in GO Ms No.94, I&CAD Dept., Dt:01-07-2013.	Departmental action.

¶15

5. RECOMMENDATIONS:

¶16

The Principal Secretary to Government Health Medical & Family Welfare Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad is requested to take action as per table supra.

¶17

Encl: Annexures – A1 to A10.

¶18

Statements – S1 to S3.

¶19

Action taken may be intimated at the earliest.”

¶20

The grievance of the petitioners, the first of whom is also an employee of the very same institution, which fact he has carefully omitted to take a mention, is that the report of the Director General has been put

¶21

VRS, J & GSP, J

¶22

3 PIL No.29/2014

¶23

into the cold storage without any action being taken to recover public money.

¶24

The official respondents have filed a counter-affidavit to the effect that, on the basis of the report of the Director General, charges were framed, enquiries were conducted, the enquiry officer submitted a report holding all but two charges fully proved and one charge partly proved against the 5^th respondent and the only charge framed against the 4^th respondent fully proved. The copies of the enquiry report have been furnished to the respondents 4 and 5 and their explanations obtained. Now the opinion of the Commissioner (Vigilance) is awaited before passing final orders.

¶25

Therefore, the purpose of the petitioners approaching this Court stands satisfied. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners wanted much more in the form of directions to the respondents to indicate what kind of penalties to be imposed, we do not think that we can overstep our jurisdiction by proposing any penalty. We are conscious of the fact that major penalty proceedings have been initiated and they will be dealt with accordingly. Hence, the Public Interest Litigation is closed, as no further orders are necessary. But, we make it clear that the official respondents should pass final orders on the enquiry proceedings without forcing any other person to come up with such a direction.

¶26

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

¶27

________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶28

________________________ G. SHYAM PRASAD, J

¶29

Date: 29-11-2016. Dsh

¶30

VRS, J & GSP, J

¶31

4 PIL No.29/2014

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶33

AND

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶35

¶36

02122016

¶37

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.29 OF 2014

¶38

(Order of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)

¶39

Date. 29-11-2016

¶40

DSH

P. Venkateswara Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Venkateswara Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Forum for Good Governance, Vs The State of Telangana

Kona Raghupathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Tirumala Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

G.Jalandhar Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

Narahari Jagadish Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Khaja Aijazuddin, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by Principal Secretary to

Jammi Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary

O.C.Sankshema Sangham Vs the State of Ap., B.C.Welfare (C2) Dept., and 4 Others

Mr. Sai Santosh Reddy Voriganti Vs The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary

Mr. Advaith Bhokray, Vs The Union of India

Ms. Kethinedi Gnapika, Vs The Union of India

R.Ilamma, Vs The State of Telangana

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Vs G.Uma Devi

M/s S.N. Construction and Developers, Vs State Bank of India