Dismissed

Managing Partner, M/S.G.Vikas Reddy and Co., Hyderabad v. Md, Ts Medical Services and Infrastructure, Hyd and Another

Telangana HC16 Dec 2024WP/30093/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to complete a cancelled tender process for construction work. The court dismissed the petition noting that the cancellation of the tender notice precluded the survival of the cause of action.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending in the writ petition stand closed.

Managing Partner, M/S.G.Vikas Reddy and Co., Hyderabad… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

TMONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 30093 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s.G.Vikas Reddy & Co., a registered^'Partnership Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner G.Shivender Reddy S/o. Late G.Ram Reddy, aged 52^years, R/o. Plot No.171, Road No.'13, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-S00 013.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Telangana State Medical Services & lnfrastructure Development Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Chief Engineer, T.S.Medical Services and lnfrastructure Development Corporation, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of 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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in cancelling/not finalising the Tender Process pursuant o to the Tender Notice No. 1-1ITSMSIDC/2017-18, dated 0305-2017 for the work of Construction of compound Wall to Government Medical College and General Hospital at Siddipet in Siddipet District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequentially to direct the respondents to complete the tender^processing under Tender Notice No. 1-1lTSMSlDCl2017-18, dated 03-05-2017 and award the work to the petitioner.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 37497 OF 2017 )

¶16

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 issue an interim direction directing the respondents to forthwith complete the tender processing under Tender Notice No. 1-1lTSMSIDC/2017-18, dated 03-052017 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MADDELA RAVINDER

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents; SRI C. APPAIAH SHARMA

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON,BLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶21

WRIT P^{ETITIONNo.oo93oF 20L7}

¶22

ORD ER:

¶23

Heard Sri Maddeta^{Ravinder, tearned counse! appearing} on behalf of the^{petitionerand Sri C'AppaiahSharma'} learned counsel appearing^{on behalfof the respondents'}

¶24

2. The iti fa c th u r ra

¶25

u n der:

¶26

) \

¶27

"...to issue a wrlt^{orderor directionmore in the nature} of Writ of^{Mandamusdeclaringthe action of the respondents} in cancelling/not^{finalising the TenderProcesspursuant to the} Tender Notice^{No.1-1ITSMSIDC/201718,dated03'05'2017} for the work of^{"ConstructionofcompoundWall to} Government^{Medical Collegeand General Hospital at Siddipet} in Siddipet^{District" as illegal,arbitrary and violative of Art'} 14, 19 and 21'^{of theConstitutionofIndia and} consequentially^{to direct the respondentsto complete the} tender^{processingunder Tender Notice No'1-} UTSMSIDC/2O17-18^{dated 03.05.2017and award the work} to the^{petitioner and to pass such order or orders as this} Hon'ble Court may^{deemsfitjust and proper in the} circumstances of the^case '^"

¶28

I I

¶29

In the counter^{alfidavit filed on behalf of the respondents'it is} specifically^{stated that the respondentswere compelledto cancel} the subject^{Tender Notice No' 1-UTSMSIDC/ZOL7-18 dated}

¶30

<br>

¶31

¶32

03.05.2017 for the reason that the revenue authorities have not fixed the actual boundaries to the site allotted for construction of the Medical College in Siddipet.

¶33

It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that in view of the fact that the subject tender is cancelled, the cause of action in the present writ petition does not survive for adjudication, any more.

¶34

Taking into consideration the averments made at paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

¶36

Writ Petition shall also stand closed

¶37

/ ASs srAsik[ssflx*

¶38

¶39

IIRUE^COPY, SECTI^{ON OFFICER}

¶40

'O,,,. ON"^{CC tO SRI MADDELA RAVINDER'AdVOCAIETOPUCI} 2. One^{CC to SRI C' eppnfnHSHARMA' Advocate [OPUCI}

¶41

3 Two^{CD CoPies}

¶42

?hMP BS

¶43

HIGH COURT
DATED:1611212024

¶44

ii <br>7.
.^J .$
)t
r\ l!
L,) (_;
o
$ C:t
Yo- o{
c HCiH ORDER
WP.No.30093 of 2017
D!SMISSING THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS
(
(>- s4.I I *
tc6(ae5.

Managing Partner, M/S.G.Vikas Reddy and Co., Hyderabad v. Md, Ts Medical Services and Infrastructure, Hyd and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Partner, M/S.G.Vikas Reddy and Co., Hyderabad v. Md, Ts Medical Services and Infrastructure, Hyd and Another

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

M/s Dhanalakshmi Iron Industries Limited Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission, rep. by its

Smt. L. Vijayalaxmi Vs Sri R.Raghunandan Rao, IAS

Agiru Narender Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. L K S Classic Restaurant and Bar, Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

Mohammed Omer Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Balaraj Manpower Supply and Contract Services Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation