Disposed

M/s. Sai Construction Corporation v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Feb 2024WP/2430/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment closes a writ petition filed by a construction firm challenging the termination of a contract and the issuance of an acceleration notice. The court held that since the contract was already terminated before the petition was filed, no further writ order was required.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed without costs as the termination of the agreement had already been passed.

M/s. Sai Construction Corporation Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY t TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

¶5

rn t PRESENT

¶6

THE HdbURABLE SRI JUSTICE c.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

¶8

wRrr PETrnoN No: 2430 oF 2024 ' 3 a Between:

¶9

M/s. Sai Construction Corporation, a Regd- partnership firm, Rep. by it's Managing Partner, Sri Potu Sharath Kumar, S/o Sri P. Venkat Rajam, aged about 49 years, Office at H.No. 12-13-829180, Street No. 12, Shiridi Sai Nagar Colony, Taranaka, Secunderabad-'l 7

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Telangana, rep. by it's Secretary, State Roads and Buildings Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Engineer-in-Chief (R&B), State Roads and CRN, Errummanzil, Hyderabad State of Telangana.

¶14

J Superintending Engineer (R&B) Circle, Jagital, State of Telangana.

¶15

4 Executive Engineer (R&B), (R&B) Division, Peddapalli, Peddapalli District, State of Telangana.

¶16

5 The Branch Manager, State Bank of lndia, Himmathnagar Branch, Secunderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewiih, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent^{No.4 in} issuing the impugned notice dt. 23.O1 .2024 and not considering the^petitioner firm's representations dated 21.01 .2024, 23.01^.2O24 and dt. 27.01^.2024as illegal, high handed, arbitrary, in violation of^{principlesof naturaljustice, contrary} to settled principles of law and set aside the same^{and consequentlydirect the}

¶19

respondents to handover hand over the clear un interrupted work site to the petitioner firm.

¶20

lA NO:^'l OF 2024

¶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 to direct the respondents not encash Bank Guarantee BG.No. 27t2016-17 dt.2o.04.2016 for Rs. 66,36,400/- and BG,No. 20512015-16 dt. 25.01.2016 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶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 extend the time for completion of work for a period of 12 months form the date of handing over the site.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. VENUDHAR REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: Gp FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: - - - -

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V.BHASKAR^REDDY

¶29

1VRIT PETITION No.243O of 2o24

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is filed seeking^{issuanceof writ of} mandamus declaring the action of^{respondent No.4 in} issuing the impugned notice^{dated 23.01.2O24 and nol} considering the petitioner^{fir-m'srepresentationdated} : 2l .O1.2024, 23.O1.2024^{and 27.O1.2024 as illegal, arbitrary} and contrary to larv and consequently,^directthe respondents to handover the clear^{uninterruptedwork site} to the petitioner firm.

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that^{respondentNo.4 has} issued impugned frnal notice^{vide No.A1/EEP/2023-} 24/600 dated 23.01.2024^{requestingthem to speed up the} rvork and accelerate the rate^{of progress of} '"vork^{and also} submit EOT proposals^{along with construction programme} of work. In the said notice,^{it is also indicatcd that} appropriate action for^{termina'l-ionof the contract will be} tal<en if they failed to comply^{rvith the said instructions'}

¶33

¶34

CVBR, J wP 2430 2024

¶35

Leaned counsel for th.: petitioner would submit that in compliance of the impugned final notice, the petitioner has made a representation dated 27.OI.2O24 to the respondents requesting them to extend the time granted in initial contract for a further period of 18 months. In the said representation, so maliy reasons were stated for extension of time including that ttre respondents have failed to hzurdover ihe land within tire time stipulated in the Agr"-ernen t. Hence, prayed this Court to direct the resiro;-.den ts to ccrri:.der the representation submitted by the petitionel seei<ing exterrsion of tjme.

¶36

Learned Assistant Governmenl- i)luader foi- Horne appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4 submits that the petitioner has not complied with the instructions issued by the respondents in the impugned notice dated 23.01.2024 and hence the contract was terminated on 27.O1.2O24 i.e. even before filing of tire writ petition. Therefore, the relief sought in Llie writ pel"ition hzrs becorne infructuous.

¶37

Lcarncd corrnsel for the putitioner vehemently coritended that tlre respondents havc not served the copy

¶38

¶39

CVBR, J \ttP 2430 2024

¶40

of termination of agreement to enable them to question the same before appropriate Forum. As such, the termination of agreement passed by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶41

Since the termination of agreement has already been passed after issuance of impugned flnal notice, the Writ Petition is closed as no further orders are required to be passed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to assail the said termination orders passed by the respondents by filing appropriate proceedings before the competent Court of law No costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/. L.SIVA PARVATHI ASSrsrANr REGrsrlAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFTICER

To, 1 One CC to SRI J. VENUDHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies

BN GJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10212024

ORDER

WP.No.2430 of 2024

e lHE SIAf
0 4 irAR 2024 !az
* *
D6'spaTcr{

¶54

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

co$6 6uv

M/s. Sai Construction Corporation v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sai Construction Corporation v. State of Telangana

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

Mohd. Abdul Muqeem Vs State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Todday Tappers Co-Operative Society(Ttcs) Vs The State of Telangana

Vorugant Santhosh Vs The State of Telangana

Musipetla Sreedhar Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Shri.Gone Jagadishwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.B.Ratan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana