Disposed

K.Ramachandra Rao, v. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation

Telangana HC1 Sept 2016WP/29588/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Class-I Civil Contractor filed a writ seeking to declare the respondents' tender notification illegal. The court noted the technical nature of the issue and denied intervention into main case merits. Instead, it directed the second respondent to dispose of a pending representation expeditiously within four weeks. The petition was subsequently dismissed with a conditional direction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 24.08.2016 expeditiously within four weeks; writ petition disposed of thereafter.

K.Ramachandra Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh Power… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY WRIT PETITION No.29588 OF 2016

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Tender Notification vide Tender ID No.29061IFB/Tender Notice No.E-30/2016-17 of CE/C/HGSC&I, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

2. Heard Sri C.Raghu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.Aruna, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶5

3. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is a Class-I Civil Contractor. The respondents issued the above said tender notification in relation to renewal of existing damaged BT roads in Mothugudem camp. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have issued the tender notification without taking into consideration the required experience and qualifications of the contractors. The petitioner also submitted his tender. A perusal of the record further reveals that the petitioner submitted a representation on 24.08.2016 to the second respondent. For one reason or other, the second respondent has not disposed of the said representation of the petitioner. The respondents are the competent persons to issue notifications and fix the required qualifications of the contractors. The issue involved in this writ petition is purely technical in nature; therefore this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the main case.

¶6

4. At the time of arguments, the only relief sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to direct the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.2016 as expeditiously as possible. The learned Standing Counsel for the

¶7

respondents also consented for the same.

¶8

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by both the counsel, the second respondent is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.2016 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶9

6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶10

7. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶12

Date: 01.09.2016 Ivd

K.Ramachandra Rao, v. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramachandra Rao, v. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation

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

Kuppampalli Fisherman CooperativeSociety Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jakkena Shankar, Vs The State of Telangana

Gummadi Raja Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Sahukari Janardhan Rao, S/o. Late Vasu Deva Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

G. Prabhakar Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

V.Sathi Reddy, Vs State of Telangana