WP/18500/2003 of B.Venkateshwar Reddy Vs The Managing Director Transco on 31 December 2004

COMMON ORDER:

Since common question is involved in all these writ petitions, they are being takenup together for disposal.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learnedstanding counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Corporation.

3. The case of the petitioner, who is common in all these three writ petitions, in brief,is that the petitioner is a registered approved contractor and in terms of tender noticeissued on 16-06-2003, the petitioner participated by submitting his tender andcomplied all the requirements as contemplated. As per the proceedings dated 19-08-2003, the petitioner was informed that his tender has been accepted for the worksi.e., a) CBD Gang- Kalapaka, b) CBD Gang- Mothugudem and c) Manning of SS-132 KV Peddapuram, and he was asked to commence the work with effect from 01-09-2003 by obtaining necessary approval from the staff engaged from theconcerned authorities. The petitioner further submits that accordingly he has madeall the preparations and also purchased substantial material and vehicles etc., forcarrying out the work. However surprisingly he was served with the impugnedproceedings canceling the work order. On enquiry, it was informed that the petitionerdid not furnish the information in regard to the particulars as sought for by the secondrespondent in the said cancellation letter. Therefore, the petitioner challenges theimpugned proceedings on the ground that the impugned action is totally without anyproper basis and also without disclosing the apparent reasons. Hence, the writpetition.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents herein, it is stated that havingregard to the specific conditions contained in the tender format and also the rulesapplicable, the petitioner has to disclose the relationship with any of the employees of the Corporation. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner participated bysubmitting his tender in pursuance of the notification issued by the Corporation andhis tender was accepted. It is submitted that all this is only without knowledge of thefact that the petitioner is related to one of the employees of the Corporation. It isfurther submitted that the petitioner and another contractor namely Smt Karunasreeare related to the Assistant Engineer of the A.P. Transco who is working atWarangal. The said Karunasree is no other than the wife of the said employee byname Anil Kumar and whereas the petitioner is his sister-in-law’s husband.Therefore, on enquiry it was found that the petitioner has suppressed this fact anddid not disclose while submitting the tender, which is very fatal. Hence, theimpugned action is taken recourse. It is further submitted that in fact the contract isonly awarded subject to furnishing of the undertaking regarding the relationship withthe employees of the A.P. TRANSCO, yet the same is not complied. Therefore,having regard to the fact that the petitioner is related to the said Anil Kumar, he is notentitled to any such contract and the same has been rightly cancelled.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that theentire impugned action is wholly vitiated and does not disclose any reasons validlyas contemplated under the conditions and further that the petitioner’s relationshipwith Anil Kumar does not come within the prohibited relations as pointed out by therespondents and therefore he is entitled to proceed with the contract work andtherefore the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Corporation submits that having regard to the fact that the relationship, which hasnot been disclosed, amounts to a serious suppression and the petitioner is notentitled to any contract. Further, there is absolutely no reason for the petitioner tosuppress such relationship with the employee of the respondents-Corporation at thetime of tender.

7. Having considered the submissions made and also on perusal of the material, theonly question which crops up for consideration in these writ petitions is as towhether the facts and circumstances for canceling the contract, which has beenallotted to the petitioner on the ground that he has suppressed the relationship withthe employees of the respondent-Corporation is right.

8. There is no dispute to the fact that in response to the tender notification issued bythe respondents-Corporation, the petitioner along with others participated and histender has been accepted and he has been awarded with the work and he is alsoasked to proceed with the work for which the petitioner has made severalpreparations and when he is about to commence the work, at which time theimpugned orders are passed canceling the work order. The only reason for suchcancellation of work is only due to the fact that the petitioner is related to one of theemployees of the respondents-Corporation who is working at Warangal by nameAnil Kumar. There is no serious dispute about the relationship with the said AnilKumar. However, admittedly, the petitioner has not disclosed this fact to therespondents-Corporation at any point of time during processing of the tender till itsfinalization thereof. No reason is forthcoming on behalf of the petitioner as to thereason for such suppression. Further, it cannot be said that merely because hehappens to be the sister-in-law’s husband of the said employee, and it would not fallwithin the prohibited relationship as contemplated in the proceedings issued by therespondents-Corporation. Therefore, it may not be said that there is any suchdisqualification as contemplated under the proceedings issued by the respondents.No-doubt as submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for therespondents under the regulation made in the orders dated 23-08-2003, list ofvarious relatives has been pointed which amounts to serious disqualification for anywithholding of contract with the respondent-Corporation. There is also no dispute tothe fact that the relationship of sister-in-law’s husband does not fall within the 26Prohibited Relations as pointed out therein. However the fact remains that thepetitioner has suppressed such close relationship with one of the employees, whichis fatal. Especially when no reason is forthcoming on behalf of the petitioner, there isno justification for withholding such information more so when transaction pertains toin respect of a contract work for public interest is involved. Having regard to the saidfact it is to be held that the suppression of the petitioner in regard to suchrelationship though it may not fall within the prohibited degree is fatal. It is also to benoticed that as per the proceedings dated 18-11-2003, the reasons for suchprohibition pointed out only with a view to avoid any collusive affairs between thecontractors and the relatives of the employees of the respondents-Corporation. In thecircumstances, I do not find any merit in the above three writ petitions.

9. All these writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

_________________B.PRAKASH RAO,J

31[st ]December, 2004.Chvn/Glv.Note: CC by one week.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER.

To

1 The Managing Director, Transco Transmission Corporation of A.P.Ltd Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.

2 The Chief Engineer Transmission, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.

3 The Chief Engineer TL&SS Zone, Visakhapatnam.

4 The Chief Engineer Elecl.,TL &SS Zone, Warangal.

5 The General Manager Personal, A.P.Transco, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.6 The Chairman and Managing Director, NPDCL, Nr.R.E.C. Petrol Pump, Waranagal.

7 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, N.P.D.C.L., Nizamabad.

8 The Director (HRD & Projects) of A.P.Transco, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad.

9 Two C.D. copies.