WP/45296/2022 of M/s. Hanuman Road Lines Vs The State of Telengana on 29 December 2023

[ [3302 ]]

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

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEIMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

wRtT PET|TION NO.45296 0F 2022

Between:

M/s. Hanuman Road Lines, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri. P. Vijay Mohan Reddy,aged about 49 years, Occ.Business, Presently R/o.- Plot No. 182, Sriram NagarColony, Near Sai Baba Temple, Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District, Telangana.

...PETITIONER

AND

1The State of Telangana, Repby its Principal Secretary Civil SuppliesDepartment, O/o at SecretariatPremises, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad-500029.Department, O/o at SecretariatPremises, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad-500029.

2. The Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Rep by its ViceChairman and [i{Vlanaging ]Director, Office. 6-3-665/1/A, CS Bhavan,Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana-500082.Chairman and [i{Vlanaging ]Director, Office. 6-3-665/1/A, CS Bhavan,Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana-500082.

3. The District Collector, Door No.F-18, lntegrated District Office Complex,Vikarabad, Vikarabad District, Telangana.Vikarabad, Vikarabad District, Telangana.

4. The Additional Collector and EOED, Room F4- lntegrated District OfficeComplex, Siddipet, Siddipet District, Telangana.Complex, Siddipet, Siddipet District, Telangana.

5. Sri. Nava Durga Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri. M.MalleshamYadav, aged bbout Major, Occ.Business, Presently Fl/o.- 13-5-143i ['l ]RamaRao Nagar, Borabanda, Kukatpally ltrledchal District, Telangana.Yadav, aged bbout Major, Occ.Business, Presently Fl/o.- 13-5-143i ['l ]RamaRao Nagar, Borabanda, Kukatpally ltrledchal District, Telangana.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High [Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue Writ, or Writs, Order or Orders or direction more particularly onein the nature of mandamus thereby declaring the action of the [respondent ][No.2,]issued a L'etter No.MktglM2l29Sl|PTC|KMS-2022-23,d1.23.11.2022, [finalizing ][the]5th respondent as a successful [Tenderer ]for Transportation of [paddy ][and]

Gunnies for Husnabad Sector, without following the clause no. Viii, of TenderTerms and condition vide Notification Lr. No. TSCSCL/650/ Paddy and GunnyTPC/KIVS 2022-2023, Dt. 03.10.2022, issued by the 4th respondent withoutconsidering the representation of the petitioner, dt.1 6.1 1 .2022 as being, illegal,arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19,21 of the constitution of lndia andconsequently seaside the Letter. No.Mktg/M2l299'lIPTC/KMS-2022-23,dt.2311112022, issued by the 2nd respondent infavour of the respondent No.sfinalizing the sth respondent as a successful Tenderer for Husnabad cluster.

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the Letter. No.Mktg/M2l2991/PTC/KMS-2022-23, d1.2311112022, issuedby the 2nd respondent infavour of the respondent No.5 and finalizing the 5threspondent as a successful Tenderer in Husnabad cluster.

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Between:

Sri. Nava Durga Enterprises, Rep. by its l/anaging Partner Sri. M.Mallesham Yadav,aged about Major, Occ.Business, Presently R/o.1 3-5-143/1 , Rama Rao Nagar,Borabanda, Kukatpally Medchal District, Telangana

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.5

AND

1M/s. Hanuman Road Lines, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri. P. Vijay MohanReddy, aged about 49 years, Occ.Business, Presently Fyo. Plof No. 182,Sriram Nagar Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple, Zaheerabad, SangareddyDistrict, Telangana.Reddy, aged about 49 years, Occ.Business, Presently Fyo. Plof No. 182,Sriram Nagar Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple, Zaheerabad, SangareddyDistrict, Telangana.

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONERYPETITIONERThe State of_Telangana, Rep Qy rts Principal Secretary, Civil SuppliesD-epartment, O/o at Secretariat Premises, Near Tank BLnd, Hyder'abad-500029.D-epartment, O/o at Secretariat Premises, Near Tank BLnd, Hyder'abad-500029.

2

3. The Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation [Limited, Rep. ]^by [its ][Vice]^by [its ][Vice]Chairman ["and ][\/anaging D'irector, Off,ce: [6-3-665/1/A, ][CS ][Bhavan,]Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana-500082Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana-500082

4. The District Collector, Door No.F-'lB, lntegrated [District ][Office ][Complex,]Vikarabad, Vikarabad District, Telangana.Vikarabad, Vikarabad District, Telangana.

5. The Additional Collector and [EOED, ][Room ][F4, ][lntegrated District ][Office]Complex, Siddipet, Siddipet District, Telangana.Complex, Siddipet, Siddipet District, Telangana.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS [1 ][tO ][4]

Petition under Section [15'1 ][CPC ][prayrng ][that ][in ][the circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support [of ][the ][petition, ][the ][High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]vacate the interim order [daled ][2011212022 ][in ][l.A.No ][.1 of ][2022 ][in ][W.P'No']4529612022.

Counsel for the Petitioner: [SRI RAMISETTI ][NAGA ][HEMANAND]

Counsel for the Respondent [Nos. ][1 ][& 3: ][GP FOR ][CIVIL SUPPLIES]

Counsel for the Respondent [Nos. ][2 ][& ][4: ][SRI CH. ][VENKAT YADAV']S.C. FOR TSCSCL

Counsel for the Respondent [No.5: ][SRI S.S.R. MURTHY]

The Court made the following: [ORDER]

"/

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

W.P.Nos.45296 of 2022ORDER:

This writ petition is hled with the following prayer:

'to issue Writ or Writs Order or Orders or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of mandamus thereby declaring theaction of the respondent No.2 in issuing a Gtt".No.MktE/M2 /299r IPTC /KMS-2O22-23 dt.23.tt.2o22 finalizing thesth respondent as a successlul Tenderer for Transportation of paaayand Gunnies for Husnabad Sector without following the clause No.VIII o[ Tender Terms and condition vidc Notification Lr.No.TSCSCL/650/ Paddy and Gunny TPC/KMS 2022 2023Dt.03.lO. 2022 issued by the 4rh respondent q,rthout considering thereprescnLation of the petitioner dt.16_11.2022 as being iltegal,arbitrary and vrolative of Article 14, 19, 2l of the Constiaution ofIndia and consequently set aside the l,etter No.Mktg/M2I2991IF rC /KMS2O22-23 dt .23).t.2022 issued by the 2idrespondent in favour o[ the respondent No.S finalizing the srhrcspondent as a succcssful Tcnderer for Husnabad cluster"

2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatpursuant to the E-Tender Notification for appointmentof contractors for transportation of paddy and gunniesfor Kharif Marketing Season 2022-2023, the petitionerfiled application for Husnabad Sector and therespondent No.5 hled two applications for Husnabadand Bomraspet Sectors. The petitioner stood as L2tenderer and the respondent No.5 stood as Lltenderer. As per the terms and conditions of TenderNotification, the tenderers have to submit separate

vehicles for each tender, but the respondent No.soffered same lorries for two tenders. Learned counselsubmits that the petitioner made a representationdated 16.7I.2022 to the respondent No.2 aboutviolation of the terms and conditions by the respondentNo.5, but without considering his representation, therespondent No,2 issued a letter dated 23.1I.2022finalizing the tenders and declared that the respondentNo.5 as contractor for trarsportation of paddy andoffered same lorries for two tenders. Learned counselsubmits that the petitioner made a representationdated 16.7I.2022 to the respondent No.2 aboutviolation of the terms and conditions by the respondentNo.5, but without considering his representation, therespondent No,2 issued a letter dated 23.1I.2022finalizing the tenders and declared that the respondentNo.5 as contractor for trarsportation of paddy andgunnies for Husnabad Sector and the same is arbitraryand illegal and requested to allow the writ petition.3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 basedon the counter averments submits that as therespondent No.5 offered lowest rate, the DistrictTender Committee has hnalized the tender of therespondent No.s. He submits that on verihcation, itwas noticed that the respondent No.5 olfered twovehicles at Siddipet and Vikarabad Districts andthereafter, orders were issued on 23.11.2022approving the tender of the respondent No.5 forand illegal and requested to allow the writ petition.3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 basedon the counter averments submits that as therespondent No.5 offered lowest rate, the DistrictTender Committee has hnalized the tender of therespondent No.s. He submits that on verihcation, itwas noticed that the respondent No.5 olfered twovehicles at Siddipet and Vikarabad Districts andthereafter, orders were issued on 23.11.2022approving the tender of the respondent No.5 for JSK, JW. P No.45296 ot 2022

Husnabad sector. Learned counsel has relied on theJudgment of this Court in W.P.No. 17934 of 2O2O andbatch dated 07.72.2O2O arrd submits that arbitrationclause is available to the parties to the tendernotification and any dispute arises, the same can bereferred to arbitration.Judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 17934 of 2O2O andbatch dated 07.72.2O2O arrd submits that arbitrationclause is available to the parties to the tendernotification and any dispute arises, the same can bereferred to arbitration.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.S basedon the counter averments submits that the respondentNo.5 has shown two different vehicles for both thetenders and the same is evident from the letterdated 20.O2.2023 of the District Manager, TSCSC Ltd.,Vikarabad and they have a_lso addressed a letterdated 2l .O2.2O23 to the respondent No.2 clarifying thesame and accordingly the respondent No.2 awardedcontract in favour of the respondent No.5. He submitsthat the petitioner is not entitled the relief sought forand he prays to dismiss the writ petition.5. Having heard the learned counsel for both sidesand perusal of the record, this Court is of theconsidered view that the petition is filed to declare the

action of the respondent No.2 in finaliztng tenders anddeclaring the respondent No.5 as successful tendererfor transportation of paddy and gunnies for Husnabadsector by violating the terms and conditions of clauseNo.Viii of tender notihcation dated 03.1O.2022.Admittedly, the respondent No.5 has offered least ratear-rd he is L1 tenderer and as such the respondent No.2has allotted the tender to the respondent No.5 in theimpugned proceedings6. The contention of the learned Standing Counselfor the respondent No.2 that as per the Judgment ofthis Court in W.P.No.77934 of 2O2O and batchdated 07.12.2020 and as per Clause No.25 of theterms and conditions of the tender notificationdated O3.1O.2022, the petitioner has to avail thearbitration clause and without approaching theauthorities under arbitration hled the present writpetition and the same is not maintainable. Therelevant portion of the judgment in W.P.No.17934 of2O2O and batch dated 07 .I2.2O2O is as follows; \

"13. No doubt, counsel appearing for the petitionerssubmits that existence of arbitration clause will not come inthe way of this Court's inherent extraordinary jurisdiction inentertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of ttLeConstitution of India, but the question is why this Courtshould entertain the writ petitions, when there is efficaciousalternate remedy is available to the writ petitioners by way ofarbitration clause contained in the tender notification. It iswell settled law that there is no bar in entertaining the writpetitions, even when there exists arbitration clause in thetender notification. However, it is the prerogative jurisdictionof this Court under Article 226 of ttrre Constitution of India toentertain or not to entertain writ petition, when effectivecfficacious alternate remedy is avaitable.

xxxx

18. Now, it is to be seen whether this Court canentertain the writ petitions and grant relief, when there existsarbitration clause in the tender documents. It is well settledIaw that existence of alternate remedy cannot be a bar forentertaining the writ pctttion. There is no gainsaying that in agiven case, the Hrgh Court may not entertain a writ petitionunder Artlcle 226 ot the Constitution on the ground ofavailability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannotbe said to be of universal application. The rule of exclusion o[writ jurisdiction due to availabitity of an altemative remedy isa rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In anappropriate case, in spite of the availability of an alternativeremedy, a writ court may still exercise its discretionaryjurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three contingencies,namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any ofthe fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principlesof natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings arewholly without jurisdiction or the vrres o[ an Act is challenged.In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does notoperate as a bar. l5 (See M.p.State Agro IndustriesDevelopment Corporation Limited v. Jahan Khanl). It is \

SK..J

\

SK..J

always discretion of this Court to entertain or not to entertainlvrit petition, which is in the nature of self imposed restriction.In the present case whether Court is of the opinion thatIactual matrlx is required to be adjudicated by proper forurn,as disputed questions of fact, which are to be resolved in theprocess, after hearing parties, after considering the nature ofallegations made, this Court is of the considered opinjon thatthe petitioners have to be relegated to alternate remed_v by wayof arbitration in terms oI clause 47 of the tender conditions.

7. The finding of the above judgment squarelyapplied to the facts of the present case and thepetitioner without availing arbitration proceedings liledthis writ petition and the same is liable to dismissed

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Theresha-ll be no order as to costs.sha-ll be no order as to costs.

9. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in thiswrit petition, shall stand dismissed.writ petition, shall stand dismissed.

SD/. K. AMMAJIASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]\,/4,/

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. One CC [to SRI RAMISETTI NAGA HEMANAND' Advocate ][IOPUCI]

2. Two [CCs ][to ][GP ][for ][Civil Supplies, High Court ][for the ][State ][of ][Telangana ][at]Hyderabad [OUT]Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One [CC ][to ][SRI ][CH. VENKAT YADAV, ][S ][C ][for TSCSCL ][[OPUC]]

4. One CC [to ][SRI ][S.S.R.MURTHY, Advocate ][IOPUC]]

5. Two [CD ][CoPies]

MPGJP\

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

1vtESTAr€,tg 23 JAN 2o2t-LottDEPAT

ORDER

WP.No.45296 of 2022

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS

,?v