Disposed

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

Telangana HC16 Dec 2024WP/33261/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractors alleged TSRTC withheld bills for work done and challenged non-payment after a prior termination order was set aside. Both sides agreed the respondents would consider the contractors' detailed explanation to the show-cause notice; the court disposed of the writ petition directing consideration with a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners' explanation dated 14.12.2024, pass orders per natural justice with personal hearing within three weeks and communicate decision; no costs.

M/s. Balaraj Manpower Supply and Contract… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

132s2 |

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 33261^{OF 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 M/s. Balaraj Manpower Supply and^{Contract Services,fvlahabubnagar,rep. by} its oroorietor Sri.B. Balarai, Stb. tate B. Padmanabham'^{aged.46 years,}

¶9

2 vli. Sri Vidya Security Sijrvices,^{Mahabubnagar' Rep. by its proprietor Smt.} B. Aruna, W/o. B. Balaraj, Aged.40^years, Both are Rl/o. Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar^{Dist, TS}

¶10

...WRIT PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The Telangana State Road Transport^{Corporatiorr, Rep. by the Managing} Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad,^{Telangana State.}

¶13

The Regional Manager,^{T6langana StateRoad Transpo-rt Corporation,} Mahabuibnagar Region, Maha6ubnagar,^{Telangana4,",".}

¶14

...*=TTONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ot^{lhe constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue an order or direction more^{particularly one in the nature of wI]T} bf UnNOnUUS declaring the^{action of the respondentsin not payingthe Bills} for the work executed by the^{petitioners from June,2024 to till datein spiteof the} Legal notice Dated^16.1 1.2024^{is unjustand arbitrary, and as suchliable to be} sei aside with a consequential^{direction to Pay the due Bills to the petitioners} with interest forthwith.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under section^{151 cPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit fileld in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} DIRECT the Respondents^{hereinto pay the Bills for the work executed by the} petitioners from June, 2O24 to till date^{in pursuance of the Legal noticeDated} 16.11.2024 forthwith,^{Pending disposalof the W. P.}

¶18

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:SRI S.M.SUBHAN}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI R.ANURAG' SC FORTSRTC}

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.3326L OF 2024

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶25

2- The Detitioners aooroach ed the Court seekinq Draver as u nde r:

¶26

"...to issue an order or direction more particttlarly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the Bills for the work executed by the petitioners from lune, 2O24 to till date in spite of the Legal notice Dated 16.11.2024 is unjust and arbitrary, and as such liable to be set aside with a consequential direction to Pay the due Bills to the petitioners with interest forthwith and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶27

3, The case of the petitioners in brief is that the petitioners filed an application in response to the TSRTC's tender notification in the year 2023 and became successful tenderers. However, after entering into a contract with TSRTC, the petitioners discovered numerous irregularities, including bribery demands from officers, supervisors, and on petitioners'complaint, eight supervisors were

¶28

¶29

;

¶30

suspended and are^{currently facing disciplinary proceedings'While} the matter stood thus, a^{Show-Causenotice was issued to the} petitioner on 05.07.2024, alleging^{irregularities and proposing to} terminate the contract by^{duly forfeiting the SecurityDeposit} besides keeping^{the petitioners in black list permanently.Petitioners} submitted their explanation^{to the} show cause notice^dated 05.07.2024, but without^considering the^petitioners' explanation, orders vide Proceedings respondent authorities^{passed final} No.P1l122(01)/2024-RM-MBNR,^dated 23.O7.2024 terminating petitioners'license by duly forfeiting the^{security deposit amount} besides keePing their names in the black^{list permanently.} Challenging the said^{proceedings,thepetitioners filed} W.P.No.21399/2024,^{which was later stayed and set aside by this} Court on 14.08.2024.^{However, the respondentshave not paid the} bills for the work done^{by the petitionerssince June, 2024'Though} legal notice dated^{16.11'2024was issuedto the respondents,no} payment has been made by them.^{Aggrievedby the same, the writ} petition is filed.

¶31

Sri R.Anurag, learned^{StandingCounselfor TSRTC,appearing} on behalf of^{the respondents brings to the noticeof this court that} inspiteoftheshow.causenoticedated05.0T.2024serveduponthe petitioners, the^petitioners did not^{fur:nish any explanationto the}

I t

)

show-cause^{notice and has approachedthe Court by filing the} present writ Petition '

¶36

Learned^{counsel appearingonbehalf of the Petitionerson} filing of the^writ instructions^{submits that subsequent to the} explanation^dated petition, the^{petitionerssubmitted a detailed} 14.72.2024^{in respect of the show-causenotice dated 05'07'2024} issued to^{the petitloners allegingcertain irregularitiesand proposing} to terminate^{the contract enteredinto and between the petitioners} and respondent^{corporationbesideskeeping the petitioners in the} black list PermanentlY'

¶37

Learned^{Stancling Counsel for TSRTC'appearing on behalf of} the respondents^{submits that the writ petition could be disposed of} directing^{the respondents to consider the detailedexplanation dated} 14.12.2024^{furnished by the petitionersto the show-causenotice} dated^{05.07.2024 in accordanceto law within a reasonable period'}

¶38

Learned^{counsel appearing on behalfof the petitionersdoes} not dispute^{the saidsubmissionmade by the learnedStanding} Counsel^{for TSRTC appearing on behalf of the respondent-} corPoration.

¶39

Taking into^{considerationthe submissions made by} both the^{learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe}

¶40

¶41

petitioners and the learned Standing Cosnsel for TSR.TC appearing on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of directing the resporidents to consider the detailed explanation dated 14.12.2024 furnished by the petationers to the show-cause notice dated O5.O7.2O24 issued to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law in conformity with the principles of natural justice by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners within a period of three(3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners. However, there shatt be no order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if

¶43

any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.

¶44

¶45

sD/-s. MALLTKARJUNIA RAO
ASSISTANT REG/STRAR
I
,TRUE COPY/i al
SECTION OFFICER

¶46

¶47

The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, f/usheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶48

The Regional lt/lanager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Mahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar, Telangana State. One CC to SRI S.M.SUBHAN. Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

4 One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC IOPUCI 5 Two CD Copies

PSK. BS t,,/

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 611212024

ORDER

WP.No.33261 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

v /./ q 7

¶58

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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 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

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