The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition filed by a private limited company which sought to challenge Engineering Standing Order No 30 and specific contract clauses as ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3168 I
HIGH COURTFOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD
(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THETWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 27280 0F 2006
Between:
M/S.SrinivasaEdifice Pvt.Ltd., Secunderabad,Apartments,Sebastian..Road' Secunderabad-50000 3';"-#r""t;d byits Managing DirectorY'VKrishna Mohan.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition underArticle 226of the constrtutronof lndiaprayingthat in the circumstancesstated rn the affidavitfiled therewith, the High courtmaybe. ;i";;;6 irrr" "r,t.order or directionpartrcularlyone in the nature of writ of mandamus declaringthat the Engineering StandingOrder No 30 issuedin No.W.29lpA/ot.Vtdaled1 1-06-200iissuedby the chief General Engineer,the iliJ |."ipono"ntherein for pnncipat chief Engineer. south centralRailway, Secunderabad,the 2nd respondent and consequentialcondition Nos.7& 28 of "Contrrat Document" formingpart of thecontract agreement tto.Otrl1nnTSClZOO4/NLpDdated 2?-08-2004 for the work "supply& Stackingof 50 mm machinecrushed stone ballast to Rarlways' specification at Nallapadu Depot of GunturDivrstonof SouthCentral Railwayand loading the same into nritry HopperWagons by mechanical/manua I means'are contraryto Clause Oi anO O+ oi theGJnerat Conditionsof contract framedby the RailwayBoard ipprilror" to aRaitways in tndia and thus uttraviresto Articles 14 & 16 of the Cliistitutionof lndia and void, contraryto the principles of naturaljustice and set .'io"tn"StandingorderNo,30dated11.06-2003andstruckdowntheclauses No..Z a 2g of',6ontractDocument,' as unfair, contrary to the general Law, arbitrary, unreasonableirrational, untenableand setaside the same and pass such other orderor ordersas thls HonourableCourt maydeem fit and properin the circumstancesof the case
l.A. NO: 1 OF2005tw,MP. NO:35048 OF 2006)
Petitron undr:riection151CPC prayingthat ln the 0rcum;tar ces stated in the affidavrtfilecl ir support of the peiition, ine,Uign Court m ly be pleased to rrrp"m i["Engin",rini] St'nOrngOrderNo 30- ssued i'r tJo W 29/Pl/olVl iri.ii ir-oozooSis 'uedoy tne inret General Engtneer the 3rd -espondent tlr"in ior.pr.cipalr )hrefe'ngin"etSouthCentral RarlwrySe ct ndr:rabad.the 2nd respondentar:conse!uentral condrtions Nos I& ;:a ol'Contract -oo".rr"'it; r*ming )art ot-ii" lontt"t Agreement. N( 'Glvl'\v/;C/1004/NLPD dated 24-08-2004fo tre *"irt''s'pprv & siacking of 5c mmn:tch ne crushed Nallapaju_deo rt of (,u rtur Dtvtston of stone ballast South centralto Railw Rarh rv /a /.s,"0ffi;;;'l;""t;;;-;i; .p'uiiti"",iJn' ", Rarlwav hcpr'erwasonsbv i,."'n.n-i.rU.rnuerlr teans' penOinddisposal of the aboveW'rt[)e:rtio'')
Counselfor the Peti ioner: SRI' T' RAVI KUMAR
Counselfor the Res )ondents:M/s ANJALI AGARWAL
The Courtmade the following:ORDER
--'--7
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEK. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.2728O of 2OO6
ORDER:
Despite listing the matterin the caption'for dismissal', even today, there is norepresentationon
behalf of the petitioner.
Therefore, this Writ Petitionis dismissed for non-
prosecution. There shallbe noorder as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellareouspetitions, ifany,
pending in the Writ Petition shallstand closed.
SD/.T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT-BEGISTRAR ob ,/TRUECOPY// SECTION OFFICER
/
To,
BM
BS
Pr"fq.
I I I 1i1' : i i
HIGHCOURT
DAT-ED:12l04l2lt23
ORDER
WP.No.27280c f 2006
1
.
j't - : ,j;'l
DISMISSINGl HE WRIT PETITION FOR T.TOT.T.FNOSE:CUTION WITHOUT COSTS
(9** . t,<sup>o\lg'
M/S. Srinivasa Edifice Pvt. Ltd.
Union of India
K. Lakshman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
