Disposed

M/s. Spt Networks v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Mar 2024WP/9327/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a final notice for forfeiture of security deposit and blacklisting in a CCTV installation contract. The Court noted that authorities had already issued a fresh show cause notice after considering previous replies. The Court dismissed the immediate challenge against the final notice but directed the petitioner to submit an explanation to the su

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit explanation to notice dated 11-05-2023 within three weeks; Respondents directed to consider explanation within three weeks; Writ Petition disposed of without costs.

M/s. Spt Networks Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9327 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

It//s. SPT Networks, A proprietorship firm represented by Sole proprietor and ltilanaging Director Timothy Prakash, S/o. tr,ilr. Dr. P.A.paul, aged 54 years, Rl/o 5, Ammena Complex Uppal Hyderabad -39

¶9

...PET|TIONER AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariet Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Suryape_t Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Suryapet.

¶12

The District Collector, Suryapet.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Suryapet District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 of [/andamus or any other writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing final notice dated 29-03-2023 vide Notice No. O3lE1l91l173Ol[iICSRPT/2021 for forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit, Bank Guarantee and black listing lhe petitioner alleging violation in a tender contract dated 1 1 -0.1-2022 for installation taking action against the CCTV carneras installed by the petitioner in the Suryapet city without considering any of the replies submitted by the petitioner that petitioner had installed the cameras and obtained satisfaction letter from the 4th respondent and sth respondent office for 219 Nos Cameras installed out of total 300 Nos cameras as per contract and the defect liability period clause would not be applicable while the petitioners request to sanction the additional BOQ is kept pending for completion of balance contract since the contract BOQ has been exhausted, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutiona I and contrary to the principles of natural^justice causing huge and irrecoverable

¶16

loss to the petitioner and consequently set aside the same directing the respondents to sanction the additional BOQ and permit the petitioner to complete the balance work including the issues raised on payment of bills for the same.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

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 respondent no.2 to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of final notice dated 29-03-2023 vide Notice No. 031E11911173O/MCSRPT/2021 pending the disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the pet,tioners representations daled 2710512022 and 01-04-2023 for sanction of additional Bill of Quantity (BOO) and charges for damaged equipment ending the disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.M.M.CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.RAM MOHAN REDDY, SC FOR MPCL Cou nsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME

¶22

ta I g $ H 4 fl ti ii ll ir l! I li I I

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

i, I' li I l

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE T. VINODKUMAR}

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.9327 of2023

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is^{fited for issuance of a Writ of} Mandamus declaring^{the action of respondent No'2 in issuing} final notice^{dated, 29-03-2023vide Notice No'03/Ell9l/1730 I} MCSRPT/2021 for^{forfeitingthe Eamest Money Deposit, Bank} Guarantee and^{black listing the petitioner atlegingviolation in} tender/contract dated^{ll-01-2022, as being illegal,arbitrary,} unconstitutional^{and contraryto principtes of natural justice} causing huge and^{irrecoverableloss to the petitioner'}

¶29

Heard leamed^{counsel tbr petitioner,leamed Govemment} Pleader for Municipal^{Administration and UrbanDevelopment} appearing on^{behalf of respondentNo.l, Sri M' Ram Mohan} Reddy, leamed^{Standing Counsel appearingon behalf of} .respondent No.2, leamed Govemment Pleader for^Revenue appearing on behalf^{of respondentNo.3 and leamedGovemment} Pleader for Home^{appearingon behatl of respondentNo'4, and} perused the record.^{With the consent of leamed counsel} appearing for^{the parties,this Writ Petition is takenup for} hearing and^disPosal.

¶30

¶31

¶32

The case of the^{petitioner in brief is that pursuant to the} notice inviting tenders for^{providing CCTV Camera System for} Security Surveillance^{at StrategicLocationsin all Wards of} Suryapet Municipality of^{SuryapetTown and District Head} Quarteis,^{the petitioner had participated in the said tender and} was declared as successful^{tenderer; that thereafter the petitioner} had entered into an agreement^{with the 2nd respondenton} ll-01-2022; and that the contract^{was valued in a sum of} Rs.36,50,77 1.03 paise.

¶33

Petitioner further contends^{that pursuant to the agreement} entered into, the petitioner^{was required to provide 300 CCTV} Cameras along with relevant^{accessories andother material}

¶34

Petitioner further contends^{that as againstthe requircment} oF 300 CCTV Cameras, it had^{installed 2 19 camerasand} thereafter since there was requirement^{of additionalmaterial,the} authorities were requested to issue^{fresh Bill of} Quantity^to enable it to complete the work.

¶35

Petitioner further contends that notwithstanding^{the said} requcst made by it, the respondent authorities have initially issucd notice dated l7 -02-2023 alleging that^some of the

¶36

¶37

1 I

¶38

cameras, which were installed^{by it, were not workingand called}

¶39

upon the^{petitioner to rectiffthe same within7 days.}

¶40

7 . Petitioner further^{contendsthat uponreceiving the aforesaid} notice, it had addressed^{a letter dated22-02-2023 submittingthat} the defect liability^{clausewouldnot be applicableto the} petitioner since the damage^{had occurred to the optic fibercable,} which is in the air and^{on streets and since the damagewas} caused due to wind^{or rainand also on account of smallstorms} which hit Suryapet on06-06-2022.

¶41

Petitioner further^{contends that notwithstandingthe reply} submitted by it, the^{authorities have issued secondnoticedated} 22-02-2023,to which^{it hadsubmittedits reply on09-03-2023'}

¶42

Petitioner further^{contends that though it had submitted} explanation through reply^{dated O9-0i-2023, the authoritieshave} issued notice dated l3-03-2023^{tetming the same as 'tlnalnotice'} and thereafter another^{notice wasalso issued with the same} nomenclature on^{29 -03 -2023.}

¶43

Petitioner further^{contendsthat questioning the final notice} termed as'final notice',^{it had fited the present Writ Petition'}

¶44

¶45

I l. Petitioner^{further contendsthat while the present Writ} Petition is^{pendingconsideration,the respondentsissued} proceedings ctaiming^{that the authorities, by taking note of the} fact that the^{petitioner did not submitany explanationto the final} notics dated 29-03-2023^{and had called in questionthe} proceedings termed as 'final^{notice' dated 29-03'2023,had} issued the proceedings^{rejecting the representation submittedby} it vide proceedings^{dated 1l-05-2023 and called upon the} petitioner to show cause^{within 2 weeks from the date of the said} notlce.

¶46

t 2. Petitioner further^{contendsthat since the authorities by the} aforesaid proceedings^{have calledupon the petitioner show cause} to the proceedings^{dated 1l-05-2023,which is subsequentto thc} petitioner approaching this Court^{by challengingthe final notice} dated 29-03-2023, the^{petitioner can be afforded three weeks} time to submit its explanation^{to the same.}

¶47

I3. Leamed Standing Counsel^{appearingonbehalf of} 2nd respondent submits that^{pursuant to the interim order ol this} Court dated 06-04-2023, the^{authoritieshavingconsidered the} explanation submitted by the^{petitioner and rejecting thesarne'} lrave issrred notice^{dated 1l-05-2023calling upon thc} Pr'titioner

¶48

¶49

¶50

to submit explanation within 2 weeks and on account of pendency of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner did not file any reply thereto.

¶51

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that if this Court were to show indulgence, the petitioner may be directed to^file its explanation to the notice dated 1l-05-2023 to enable^the authorities to consider the same and^pass further^{orders in the} matter.

¶52

I 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, since^the respondent authorities have issued show cause^noticedated ll-05-2023 by considering the explanations submitted by^the petitioner to the notices dated 17-02-2023,22-02-2023, 13-03-2023 and 29-03-2023, this Court is of the^{viewthat the} petitioner should be directed to submit its explanation to^the notice dated ll-05-2023 within a^period ol^{threeweeks lrom the} date of receipt of a copy of this order, and^{upon petitioner} submitting its explanation, the respondent^{authorities shalI take} further action by considering the explanation submitted by^the petitioner within a further period of three^(03)rveeks strictlyⁱⁿ accordance with law.

¶53

¶54

Subject to above observations and directions, this^Writ

¶55

Petition is disposed of. No costs

¶56

As a sequel, miscellaneous petit{ons pending if any shalt

¶57

stand closed.

¶58

, I/TRUE COPY//

¶59

SD/- T. JAYASREE ASS|STANT(REqgfnan }^</sup>

¶60

SECTION OFFICER

¶61

¶62

1 The Principal Secretary t/unicipal Administration and Urban^Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of^Telangana.

¶63

2 The Commissioner, Suryapet Municipality, Suryapet.

¶64

3 The District Collector, Suryapet.

¶65

4 The Superintendent of Police, Suryapet District

¶66

One CC to SRI V.M.lt/l.CHARY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

t) Two CCs ro GP FOR IVICPL ADI\ilN & URBAN DEV,^{High Court for the State} of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶68

7 one CClo SRI M.RAIV MOHAN REDDY, SC FOR MPCL [OPUC] 8 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of^{Telangana, at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶69

I Two CCs to GP FOR HOII/E, High Court for the State of Telangana,^at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶70

10 Two CD Copies

PSK,

CJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010312024

ORDER

WP.No.9327 ot 2023

1A r E o
{
9
$1<br>) ?
\1Ju" -!
t
,o
)tt- i
-- : n :l'- 2"

¶79

J l: ii l ti DISPOS!NG OF THE WRIT PETITION fi WITHOUT COSTS. I t ii li fII rYte I l ji 4/'v l; ii Ir ii I il ii U il IJ li

M/s. Spt Networks v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Spt Networks v. The 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

Yeniganti Laxmi Prasanna Vs The State of Telangana

Thakuur Balramsingh Vs The State of Telangana

Kallepalli Balaraju, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Reshu Govardhan Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd, Sirpur Kaghaznagar Vs Kaghaznagar Municipality

B. Devender Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others