Dismissed

M.Parthasarathi Krishna S/o Lingaiah v. The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company

Telangana HC23 Feb 2016WA/129/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed three writ appeals challenging vacated interim orders in public procurement matters involving Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited. The court upheld the lower court's finding that contract award letters were likely fabricated due to visible overwriting and altered dates, as the appellant failed to prove their genuineness.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed; vacated interim orders remain unchanged; miscellaneous petitions disposed of.

M.Parthasarathi Krishna S/o Lingaiah Vs The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶4

WRIT APPEAL Nos. 128, 129 AND 130 OF 2016

¶5

23-02-2016

¶6

WRIT APPEAL No. 128 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Parthasarathi Krishna

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL) Operations, rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director, Chittoor and others

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶14

WRIT APPEAL Nos. 128, 129 AND 130 OF 2016

¶15

PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶16

These writ appeals are directed against interlocutory orders passed in miscellaneous petitions whereby interim orders dated 02-09-2015 and 01-09-2015 passed in WPMP Nos.36467 and 36386 in Writ Petition Nos.28108 and 28060 of 2015 respectively have been vacated. The relevant portion of the impugned orders reads thus:

¶17

“In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings dt.20-08-2015 issued by 2^nd respondent awarding contract for Outsourcing of Customer Service Center on works contract basis for Operation and Maintenance at Operation Sub-Division, Allagadda for the period from 01-09-2015 to 31-03-2016 to 3^rd respondent.

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that for the period from 01-06-2015 to 31-03-2016 the same contract had been awarded to him by proceedings dt.29-07-2015 of the 2^nd respondent.

¶19

In the counter-affidavit filed by 2^nd respondent, the 2^nd respondent had denied issuing the said letter dated 2907-2015 and contended that the said letter appears to have been created by petitioner.

¶20

Although reply affidavit has been filed by petitioner refuting this contention, since no material has been placed by petitioner to establish that 2^nd respondent did issue the letter dated 29-07-2015, it has to be presumed that petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands.”

¶21

In view of the observations made by learned Judge in the impugned orders, we have perused the letters dated 29-07-2015.

¶22

From the contents of the letters, it is clear that there is overwriting and that the dates are changed, including the date of the said letters. That seems to have impressed the learned single Judge to hold that the appellants have not placed any material on record to establish that the letters were in fact issued by the 2^nd respondent. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants could not and did not demonstrate that the letters, dated 29-07-2015, on the basis of which the appellants claim their right, are genuine and in fact are issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶23

We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence, the writ appeals are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶24

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ________________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 23-02-2016 ks

M.Parthasarathi Krishna S/o Lingaiah v. The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Parthasarathi Krishna S/o Lingaiah v. The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company

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

Kattari Venkata Ramana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

V.Mohan Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its

Kondam Ravindar Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

M.Parthasarathi Krishna S/o Lingaiah Vs The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company

G. Ramachandraiah, Vs The District Collector

M.Phanibhushn Rao, S/o M.Satyanarayana, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution