Telangana High Court
WP/24139/2004 of M/s.Sri Lakshmi Electricals, Vs The Divisional Engineer (Electrical) on 27 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24139 of 2004 Between: M/s.Sri Lakshmi Electricals, 1171, MIG Phase-I, BHEL,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 24139 of 2004
Between:
M/s.Sri Lakshmi Electricals, 1171, MIG Phase-I, BHEL, Medak District rep., by its Proprietor M.Srinivas, s/o M.Krishna Murthy,
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Divisional Engineer (Electrical) Operation, APCPDCL, Medak District.2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, APCPDCL, Gummadidala, MedakDistrict.
3 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APCPDCL, Medak District.
4 Reddy Electricals & Contractor Works, rep., by its Proprietor N.Malla Reddy, s/oIndra Reddy, 6-6-18, Ganji Maidan, Sanga Reddy, Medak District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondent's No.1 to No.3 in calling the quotations fromthe respondent No.4 and the recommended the name of the respondent No.4 by therespondent No.2 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of thepetitioner's fundamental rights and further declare the action of the respondents ininviting tenders clandestinely for the purpose of awarding the contract of manningand maintenance of sub-station at Jinnaram without issuing a public notice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SMT.M.VINOBHA DEVI
The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:
The petitioner was awarded the contract for maintenance of the sub-station in themonth of May 2004. Thereafter, the contract was being renewed. Respondents 1 to 3invited tenders for awarding the contract for the same work. The petitionerchallenges the same on several grounds.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for A.P.S.E.B.
It is not in dispute that the contract awarded to the petitioner was from month tomonth and the period had expired. It is for respondents 1 to 3 to take action for awardof the contract from time to time. No exception can be taken for the action ofrespondents 1 to 3 in inviting tenders. The petitioner cannot be said to have sufferedany grievance on account of such action. If he is so advised, he too can participatein such tenders.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that in case the work of the petitioneris found satisfactory, respondents 1 to 3 shall continue the petitioner till thefinalisation of the contract in pursuance of the tenders. No order as to costs.
_________________
27-12-2004
kdl
To
1 The Divisional Engineer (Electrical) Operation, APCPDCL, Medak District.
2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, APCPDCL, Gummadidala, MedakDistrict.District.
3 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APCPDCL, Medak District.
4 Two C.D. Copies.