Dismissed

Nallaveli Construction v. Chief Executive Officer ( Bank) and Anothers

Telangana HC4 Mar 2024WP/23523/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank to consider the petitioner's representation of date 12.10.2023 and pass appropriate orders within two weeks given a fair opportunity of hearing. Pending miscellaneous applications were closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Order directing respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 12.10.2023 and pass appropriate orders within two weeks allowing fair hearing.

Nallaveli Construction Vs Chief Executive… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF IVIARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23523 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nallaveli Construction, Warangal, Rep. by its tvlanaging Partner. Sint. N-Aruna, Wo. N.Kurma Reddy. Aged 60 years. Ro. H.No. 2-88, Pradana Nagar, Tavakalapur Village, Gundlapalli (Dindi) (M), Nalgonda District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Warangal District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Subedari, Hanamkonda - 506 O01. Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer.

¶12

The Additional Registrar/Chief Auditor and lnquiry Officer, 0/0. Commissioner, Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Cooperation Department, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ⁽ⁱ⁾ declare the Memo Rc. No. BkglDevl2017-18, dated 29-5-2017 issued by the 1st Respondent to keep the construction agreement on hold is illegal, arbitrary and unjust-⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ declare the Proceedings Rc. No. 3126l2O17tCR-2, daIe4 2g-5-2O17 issued by the^2M Respondent as illbgal and arbitrary.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, tfre^{High Court may be pleased to} direct the Respondents to^pay an arnount of Rs.2,37,94,560/-^{alongwith an}

¶17

interest of 12o/o p.a., from the submission of the bitl dated:05.02.2017 along with compensation and liquidated damages to the Petitioner while directing consideration of the representation dated: 1 2.1O.2023.

¶18

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 44488 OF 20171

¶19

Petition under Section l5l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the amounts due to the Petitioner.

¶20

l.A. NO: 2OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 35684 OF 2017)

¶21

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 implead the proposed Respondent No.3 herein as Respondent No. 3.

¶22

1.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 29080 OF 2017)

¶23

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 direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner herein to execute the works by suspending the Memo Rc. No. BkglDevl2olT-18, dated 29-5-2017 issued by the 1sr Respondent including the Proceedings Re. No. 3126t2017. CR-2, dated 29-520'1 7 issued by the 2nd Respondent.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: DT.V.RAJA RAM MOHAN RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI C.HARI PREETH

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR COOPERATION

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEIIIAPAKA

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.23523 of 2Ol7

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relieft

¶33

"to issue an order direction or Writ more particularlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or anA other appropriate urit (i) declare th.e Memo Rc. No. Bkg / Deu/ 2 O 1 7- I 8 dated 29.5.2017 issued bg the 7st respondent to keep th.e constntctioru agreement on hold is ilLegal, arbitrary and unjust (ii) declare tle Proceedings Rc. No. 3 1 2 6/ 2 O 1 7 / CR-2, dated 2 9. 5. 2 O 7 7 issued bg the 2d respondent."

¶34

Heard Sri V.Raja Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel for

¶35

petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1.

¶36

[,earned counsel for petitioner submits that subsequently to the filing of this writ petition, petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 along with detailed representation, dated 12.10.2023 submitting all their grievances and restrict his^prayer to direct tlle respondents to consider ttre representation dated 12.LO.2O23 in^a time bound manner.

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. I has drawn attention of this Court to letter dated O2-O3.2O24 addressed by the Chief Executive Officer, Warangal District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Warangal, to Sri Polavarapu Srinivas, Senior Advocate, which reads as under:

¶41

"The contents mentioned in the representation dated 12.1O.2O23 bg M/s. Nallauelli Constntctions are under examination by the bank, if the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana directs the bank to dispose of the representation a.s per tle procedure. In pursuance of Court orders, Bank shall deal the case dulg follotting the Bank's guidelines in this regard."

¶42

Recording the submission made by learned counsel appearing on either side, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and taking into communication letter dated O2.Q3.2O24, this Court deem it fit to dispose of the writ petition, directing respondent No. 1 to consider petitioner's representation, dated L2.1O.2O23 in accordance with law by giving a fair opportunity of hearing to petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and communicate the decision taken thereon to petitioner.

I )

Accordingly the Writ^petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶49

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shalt stand

¶50

closed.

¶51

/ SD/- T. VIJAY KUftIA R ASSISTANT REGISy'RA R

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

L'T SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To, 1. The Chief Executive Officer,^{Warangal District Cooperative CentralBank} Limited, Subedari,.Hanamkonda^- 506^{001 .} 2. The Additional Registrar/Chief^Auditor aM,^{lnquiry Officgr,0/0.} Commissioner, Coopbration and^{RegistrarofCooperative Societies,} Cooperation Departrnent, Telangana 9tate,^Hyderabad. 3. One'CC to DT.V.RAJA RAM^{MOHAN RAO, Advocate.} [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI C.HARI PREETH,^Advocate, [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the GP FOR COOPERATION,^{High Court for the State Of} Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. BSK KKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0 410312024

lHE ST4 /{:
(
(r
3 2t r'tAB zoz4
(_-1
4-
t oE.9p41r;1rE o *

¶60

ORDER

¶61

WP.No.23523 of 2017

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Nallaveli Construction v. Chief Executive Officer ( Bank) and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nallaveli Construction v. Chief Executive Officer ( Bank) and Anothers

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

T. Maboo Basha Vs The Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.L. Papers Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Superintending Engineer

G. Venkataiah, Vs A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

Boya Jambanna Vs The State of Telangana

Shankari Trikesh Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Sri Kala Kuteers Apartment Owners, Wlefare Association Vs The State of Telangana