Telangana High Court
WP/23272/2004 of Sudhakar Patil, Vs Incharge Commissioner, on 28 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23272 of 2004 Between:
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)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 23272 of 2004
Between:
Sudhakar Patil, S/o. Shyam Rao Patil,R/o. 2-1-140, Kunjikanivas, N.G.O."s Colony, Zaheerabad.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 Incharge Commissioner, Municipal Council, Zaheerabad Municipality, Zaheerabad, Medak District.
2 Commissioner, Municipal Council, Zaheerabad, Municipality, Zaheerabad, Medak District.
3 The Chairman, Municipal, Council, Zaheerabad, Municipality, Zaheerabad, Medak District.
4 Municipal Engineer, Muncipal Council, Zaheerabad, Municipality, Zaheerabad, Medak District.
5 M/s. Manjeera Irrigation & Services Submerssible - Borewell Contractor & Dealer, Main Road, Zaheerabad, Medak District.
6 The District Collector, Sangareddy, Medak District.
.....RESPONDENTS
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 or order or orders or direction or directions more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to call for therecords to strike down the notice dt. 22.11.2004 issued by the Respondent No.3calling for emergency meeting to pass resolution dt. 23.11.2004 to give work order tothe Respondent No.5 at a higher rate of 2.85% more than the rate fixed in the tenderby the Municipality, illegally refusing to give the copy of the resolution dt. 23.11.2004to the Municipal Councilors, though applications were made to the RespondentNo.1, consequently to Stay all further proceedings in respect of purchase ofSubmerised pumpsets from the respondent No.5 by the Respondents Nos. 1, 3 at ahigher rate of 2.85% more than the rate fixed in the tender by the Municipality, as perthe notice dt. 22.11.2004 issued by the respondent No.3, till the final disposal of theMain Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.V.CHALAPATHY RAOCounsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: Mr.Polisetty RadhakrishnaCounsel for the Respondent No.5: None appeared.Counsel for the Respondent No.6: The G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following :
ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice)
This petition is filed as Public Interest Litigation. Petitioner is a member ofBharatiya Janata Party and appears to be aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Municipal Council in having awarded contract to the fifth respondent for supply ofsubmersible pump sets at a price 2.85% higher than the estimated price. Petitionerin fact was not the person who had participated in tenders. None who participated inthe tenders has raised any objections.
In order to satisfy ourselves, we had asked the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 to make available the relevant files inviting tenders and finalizingthe same. Files have been produced before us. There is proper paper advertisementinviting tenders. Thereafter, the tenders were evaluated and decision was taken toaward contract to the fifth respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner states thatthere was no necessity to have called for emergent meeting on 23[rd] November,2004 to award such a contract at 2.85% higher than the estimated price and that alsoto respondent No.5 since another person is prepared to supply the pump sets at theestimated rate. It appears that the petitioner is espousing the cause of such otherperson who is now ready to supply the pump sets at a less price than quoted by thefifth respondent. Such a grievance cannot be entertained by us in a petition whichhas been filed as Public Interest Litigation. As a matter of fact, this is not a publicinterest litigation but private interest litigation and we find no merit in it andaccordingly dismiss the same.
___________________
DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ28-12-2004
_____________________
M.NARAYANA REDDY, J
tvr
To
1 Incharge Commissioner, Municipal Council, Zaheerabad Municipality, Zaheerabad, Medak District. Zaheerabad, Medak District.
2 Commissioner, Municipal Council, Zaheerabad, Municipality, Zaheerabad, Medak District.
3 The Chairman, Municipal, Council, Zaheerabad, Municipality, Zaheerabad, Medak District.
4 Municipal Engineer, Muncipal Council, Zaheerabad, Municipality, Zaheerabad, Medak District.
5 The District Collector, Sangareddy, Medak District.
6 2 CCs to the Govt. Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
7 2 CD copies.