Disposed

M/S. Ismail Man Power Consultancy v. M.D., Tsrtc, and 3 Others.

Telangana HC7 Jan 2025WP/13963/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the rejection of wage bills for cleaning and washing works done for TSRTC. The court directed the petitioner to submit correct wage bills and allowed the respondent to consider the representation according to law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to submit representation with correct wage bills; respondent to consider within four weeks.

M/S. Ismail Man Power Consultancy Vs M.D… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

l32s2l

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY^{OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13963^{OF 2017}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/S. tsmail Man Power Consultancy,^{rep by its Proprietor,P' lsmail,S/o' P'} Sitir xnan 40^yrs, Fl/o^{PlotNo i12, Road M2, BheemreddyColony} Boduppal, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONER

AND

1 . The TSRTC, ,^rep by^{its Managing Director,Muheerabad, Hyderabad} - 2 The Regional Minager,^{T.S.R-.T.C.,Secunderabad Region,at JBS, Picket,} Secunderabad.

¶13

ih; Depot^{Manager, T.S.R.T.C., BHEL Depot,Ramachandrapuram'} Hyderabad.

¶14

iG-Asst Enginee(Mech),^{T.S'R.T.C., 0/0 Depot Manager,Ranigunj -1} Depot' secunderabad

¶15

...RES'.NDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226^{of the constitut'ron of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith, the High court maybe} pleased to issue an order or direction more^{particularlyone in the nature of writ of} mandamus declaring the^{action of the 3rd respondentin rejecting the claimof the} petitioner vide the Proc No- o1t122(',1)12017-BHEL,^{Dt 21-01-2017 as high handed} and arbitrary action,^contrary to^{the circular instructions,capricious,} unconstitutional,^{without jurisdiction and as suchliatdeto be set aside in the} interest of^justice with a consequential^{directionto the respondentsto pay the} Bills ctaimed by the^{petitionerfor an amountof Rs 3,85,452l- (RupeesThree} Lakhs Eighty Five^{ThousandFour FiftyTwo only) withinterestfrom 25-6-2014} forthwith

¶17

NO oF 2017 MP. NO: 1 7333 oF²⁰¹⁷

¶18

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} Direct the respondents^{herein to pay the Bills claimed by the Petitionerfor an} amountofRs3,85,452l(RupeesThreeLakhsEightyFiveThousandFourFifty Twoonly)bysuspendingtheProcNoo11122(1)12017-BHEL,Dt21.01=2017 forthwith^{pending disposal of the W. P}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRl. S. M. SUBHAN}

¶20

Counsel forthe^{Respondents:SRI ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC)}

¶21

The Gourt made^{the following:ORDER}

¶22

¶23

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶24

WRIT PETITTON No.^{13963 0F 201 7}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri S,M.Subhan, learned counsel^appearingon behalf of the^petitioner and^{Sra R.Anurag, learned Standing} Counsel for TSRTC, appearing^{on behalf of the respondents'}

¶27

r as 2 The^p etitioner a^oroached t^{he Courtseekino Dra} u nder:

¶28

"...to issue an order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus^{declaringthe action of the} 3'd respondent In rejectinq^{the claim of the petitioner vide the} Proc No.o1l122(1)/2017-BHEL,^{Dt.2l-OL-2O17ashigh} handed and arbltrary action,^{contrary to 'the circular} instructions, capricious,^{u nco nstitutional, withoutjurisdiction} and as such liable to be set^{aside in the interest of justice} with a consequential direction^{to the respondents to pay the} Bills claimed by the^{petitioner for an amountof Rs.3,85,452l-} (Rupees Three Lakhs EiEhty Five Thousand Four^{Fifty Two} only) wlth interesl^from 25-6-2014^{forthwith and pass such} other order or orders as this^{Hon'ble Court maydeemfit} and proper in the circumstances^{of the case."}

¶29

The case of the^petitioner in brief^{ls that, the petitioner was a} contractor and^{petitionerused to do works in TSRTC and APSRTC.} In the month of January,^{2014,the petitioner had completed the} work order like^{sweeping, cleanrng and washing of ordinary type}

¶30

¶31

SN,J wp_13963 20t7

¶32

buses at BHEL Depot for a period of six months on nomination basis and the bills were paid. Similarly, in the month of lune, 2014, again for a period of six months, the same work was entrusted to the petitioner and the same was completed from 26.06.2014 to L2.ll,21l4 and the same was certified by the concerned Assistant Engineer (Mech), T.S.R.T.C. and the work order was also issued to the petitioner in the month of January, 2016. Immediately, the petitioner claimed bills for an amount of Rs.3,85,452l- by furnishing all the relevant documents whlch were duly signed by the Assistant Engineer Mechanical of BHEL Depot. However, the respondent No.3 issued rejection order vide proceedings No.01/122()/2OL7-BAEL, dated 21.01.2017 to the petitioner holding that the petitioner had submitted bills by manipulating the same and on bogus names. Aggrieved by the sa me, the writ petition is filed .

¶33

4.7 he relevant oorti o n of the D ro ceed nos N o.o1 122( 1 ) /2O17-BHEL dated 21.O1.2O17 issued bv the resoondent lloiis extracted hereunder:

¶34

"The clarification sought from the AE (Mech) of RNG-1 depot regarding the certification of wage bills and he has explained in his clarification that the contractor has supplied the workers, when I am worked in the BHEL depot at the time of his contract period basing on the work done

SN,J wp_139$ jnl7

ll rl

I/t

by the Contractor, but as^per the records of the outsourcing registers the AE^(Mech) clarification is not correct and the bills which are certiFied by him are bogus bills.

¶42

Moreover, the contractor has manipulated and submitted wage bills on bogus names, wtose names were not tallying with the Security and maintenance registers, and the AE(Mech) of RNG-I depot the then AE(Mech) of BHEL depot has certified the bills blindly without verifying the concerned reg iste rs.

¶43

In view of the bills, the circumstances and facts explained above, the wage bills are kept in pending, but there is no other intention, if you have submit the correct wage bills as^per the depot related records your wage bills payments may be made after taking permission of Higher authorities."

¶44

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner instead of submitting correct wage bills as per the depot related records, had submitted incorrect wage bills, which were not tallying with the Security and maintenance registers and therefore, the payment of pending wage bilts of the petitioner for the period from February, 2OL5 to May, 2O15, could not be cleared.

¶45

¶46

SN.J lvp I iq6l_2017

¶47

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-corporation further contends that upon the petitioner submitting a detailed representation with correct wage bills as per the depot related records, the request of the petitioner for release of payment of pending wage bills from February, 2OLS to March, 2O15, would be considered in accordance to Iaw by the respondent-corporation.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the responde nt-Corporatio n.

¶49

8 Takinq into nst deratio n:

¶50

a) The facts and circumstances of the case,

¶51

b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-corporation and,

¶52

c) The contents of the^proceedings dated 21.O1.2OL7 in particular the relevant portion (referred to and extracted a bove),

¶53

SN,J wp_13963 2017

¶54

¶55

The wrat^{petition is disposedof directingthe petitioner} to submit a detailed^{representationfor release of payments} pertaining to the^{petitioner's pending wage bills for the} outsourcing activity^{of special type buses undertaken by the} petitioner for the period from^{February,2O15 to May, 2015} duly enclosing the^{correct wage bills as per the depot related} records to the respondent^{No.3, within a per'od of two (2)} weeks from the date of^{receipt of a copy of this order' Upon} thepetitionersubmittingthesaidrepresentationw.thallthe relevant^{particulars as per the depot related recordsto} respondent No.3 within^{the time period as stipulated as} above, the respondent^{No.3 is directed to considerthe said} representation in^{accordanceto law within a period of four} (4) weeks thereafter and^{duly communicate the decisionon} the said representation^{to the petitioner herein'However,} there shall be^{no orderas to costs.}

¶56

Asase quei, the miscellaneous Petitions,^if

¶57

any,^pending in the^{Writ Petition shall also stand closed'}

¶58

To,

¶59

SD'.A.SR^{INIVAS REDDY} ASSIS^ANTREGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// 0 SECTION^OFFTCER - "-1 Il3 ffi3,YJ|l',?^{l{ff Y{,13 1T { t:f'ii:3f; J;: *!f[:?i'S'P icket'} Secunderabao

¶60

3 fhe Depot^{Manager,T.S.R.T.C., BHEL Depot,Ramachandrapuram'} Hvderabad.

¶61

4 ?tE=n3liEi,si"ee(Mech),^{T.s.R.T'c',0/0 Depot Manager'Ranigunj-'t}

¶62

\ Deoot. Secunderabad.

¶63

¶64

5 6 3 ffi Sg 3 3. xi,'HR8iu'"s85"*"1'3^4?" ?4,, "r

¶65

7 Two CD CoPies "#I

¶66

a u/BSK ft/_

HIGH COURT

\TDATED'o7lo1t2o2s

ORDER

o 11 lHE SI4
( o
.<.
:)
.) 19 5iB 216 oz\iI
AT CH€O

¶73

WP.No.13963 of 2017

¶74

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (t zfrv;-

¶75

1r"f-^s-l

¶76

M/S. Ismail Man Power Consultancy v. M.D., Tsrtc, and 3 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Ismail Man Power Consultancy v. M.D., Tsrtc, and 3 Others.

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

Smt. Ganta Anitha Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Mahaboobpasha Vs State of Telangana

Telugunadu Vidyuth Karmika Sangham, Telangana, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director of

Chanda Annapurna Vs The State Telangana.

B.Ganesh, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

M/s Meco Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Singareni Colleries Company Limited