Telangana High Court
WP/20473/2004 of K. Anjaneyulu S/o K. Venkateswarlu Vs The Sattenapalli Municipality rep by Commissioner, on 28 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.20473 OF 2004 Date: 28-12-2006 Between: K.Anjaneyulu, S/o K.Venkateswarlu, aged 36 years, Occ: Contractor, r/o near Old Bus Stand, Sattenapalli Town, Guntur District. … Petitioner. And 1. The Sattenapalli Municipality, rep. By its
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.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.20473 OF 2004
Date: 28-12-2006
Between:
K.Anjaneyulu,S/o K.Venkateswarlu, aged 36 years,Occ: Contractor, r/o near Old Bus Stand,Sattenapalli Town, Guntur District.
… Petitioner.
And
1.The Sattenapalli Municipality,
rep. By its Commissioner,
Sattenapalli, Guntur District and 2 others.
… Respondents.
ORDER:
This Court issued Rule Nisi on 09.11.2004 and made an interimorder in W.P.M.P.No.26811 of 2004 to the effect that in view of the factthat the council in its resolution No.163, dated 30.9.2004 removed thename of the petitioner from the black list and resolved to permit him toparticipate in the Municipal tenders and to return the forfeited EMD tothe petitioner, the respondents are directed to issue tender schedule tothe petitioner, for any tenders hereafter, unless the petitioner isdebarred from participation.
2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring actionof the authorities of the first respondent-municipality in not permittingthe petitioner to bid for the tenders of the first respondent-municipalityeven after the resolution of the first respondent-municipality dated30.9.2004 through resolution No.163, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and pass such other suitable orders.
3. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit narrating several facts. In the light of the facts and circumstances and also in the light of theinterim order referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinionthat no further orders need be passed.
4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. No order as tocosts.
__________________
(P.S.NARAYANA, J.)
Date: December 28, 2006.BSB