Dismissed

Avexa - Railone Jv v. Union of India

Telangana HC2 Dec 2020WP/21638/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Hyderabad on 2.12.2020 dismissed a writ petition challenging non-processing of a tender by South Central Railway. The petition was withdrawn, permitting a fresh challenge against the subsequent disqualification order, as per Section 151 CPC and Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted to file fresh challenge against disqualification order; no costs.

Avexa - Railone Jv Vs Union of India — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 21638 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Avexa - Railone JV,8-2-268111D/B/S2 558, Swarna Heights, Aurora Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034 Rep. byAuthorized Representative I/r.K. Koti Reddy

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Union of lndia, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi.

¶11

2 South Central Railway, Represented by its General [Vlanager, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.

¶12

3 Chief Administrative Officer (Con), South Central Railway, Rail Nirman Bhavan, Secunderabad.

¶13

4 Chief Engineer - ll (Con), South Central Railway, Rail Nirman Bhavan, Secunderabad

¶14

...RESP.NDENT'

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not processing the tender placed by the Petitibner in Tender No.52-CAO-C-SC-2020 for further stages of evaluation, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Clause 17.4 of the IRSGCC July 2020, and consequently direct the Respondent to evaluate the tender submitted by the Petitioner as per IRSGCC July 2020 and process for further stages of evaluation.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including finalization of Tender No.52-CAO-C-SC-2020 by Respondents.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAILASH NATH P. S. S.

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI C.V. RAJIV REDDY,

¶21

S.C. FOR SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶24

WRIT PETITION No. 21638 of2O2O

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Railways Sri C.V. Rajiv Reddy represents that as a matter of fact, the petitioner's offer was disqualified.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner hence, seeks this Writ Petition to be withdrawn with liberty to his client to file a fresh one challenging the disqualification order which has been communicated to it subsequent to filing of this Writ Petition.

¶28

Permission is accorded and the Writ Petition is therefore.

¶29

dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

¶30

Misceilaneous Petitions, if any stand closed.

¶31

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPY//

¶32

SECTION OFFICER

¶33

To, 1. One CC to Sri Kailash Nath P. S. S.. Advocate tOpllct 2. One CC to Sri Namavarapu RaieshwarRao, AriiitJ'n-i'soticitor cenerat (OpUC) 3. One 4. Two CD Copies.QQ^{t-o Sri c.V.Rajiv Reddv, s.c. roiSbuih} C;;fur"i;iuuv foprlci^"", IVP

(

HIGH COURT

DATED:2/1212020

I lo 11 DECz[Uo Ez
\a .L
\ *{
<br>',,.

¶38

ORDER

¶39

WP.No.21638 of 2O2O

¶40

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶41

Mll ),CW'

Avexa - Railone Jv v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avexa - Railone Jv v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Kommidi Constructions Vs The Union of India

Kommineni Narasimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Kanaparthi Ajay Chandra, Vs The Registrar

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal and Another Vs The Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Another

Sri Velamati Ramnath Vs Union of India

Sri a. Srinivas Yadav Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others