Telangana High Court
WP/26521/2005 of P. Sri Rama Murthy, Vs The Commissioner, A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, on 27 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.26521 of 2005 Date:27.12.2005 P.Sri Rama Murthy --------PETITIONER The Commissioner and others. ---------RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner is appointed as a diet contractor for the Area Hospital, Gudivada, on a temporary basis. Respondents 1 to 3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.26521 of 2005
Date:27.12.2005
P.Sri Rama Murthy
--------PETITIONER
The Commissioner and others.
---------RESPONDENTS
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.
ORDER:
The petitioner is appointed as a diet contractor for the Area Hospital, Gudivada, on atemporary basis. Respondents 1 to 3 issued a tender notice, dated 10.06.2005,inviting tenders for supply of diet to the inmates of the third respondent-hospital. Thepetitioner, the fourth respondent and several others submitted their tenders. Thepetitioner filed W.P.No.17986 of 2005 before this Court alleging that respondents 1to 3 were taking steps to replace him with another temporary diet contractor. The writpetition was dismissed on 17.11.2005, leaving it open to the petitioner to participatein the tendering process. This writ petition is filed alleging that the fourth respondentdoes not hold the requisite qualifications to submit his tender and despite the same,respondents 1 to 3 are taking steps to consider the tender submitted by the fourthrespondent also.
The fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that he holds the requisitequalifications. On the other hand, he made allegations against the petitioner as tothe nature of his service.
The learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3, on instructions, submits thatthe petitioner is resorting to various steps to protract the finalisation of tenders, withan object of continuing as temporary diet contractor.
Admittedly, the petitioner himself submitted his tender in response to a tender notice,dated 10.06.2005. Any cause of action can be said to have accrued to him, only after the authority concerned finalises the tenders. The question as to whether the fourthrespondent holds requisite qualifications would become relevant, if only his tender isaccepted. There is no reason to doubt that respondents 1 to 3 do not verify thequalifications of the tenderers, before the contract is awarded. It is not necessary forthis Court to express any opinion as to the allegations and counter-allegations madeby the petitioner and the fourth respondent against each other. The first respondenthas formulated the policy in the matter of finalisation of tenders by issuing a Circular,dated 22.02.2005. The matter has already been delayed.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to3 to finalise the tenders, as early as possible, duly following the procedure stipulatedin Circular, dated 22.02.2005. No costs.
______________
27.12.2005
kdl