VENKATA RAMANA ELECTRICAL WORKS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-2019-10-41
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 23,2019

Venkata Ramana Electrical Works Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D V S S Somayajulu, J. - (1.)This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in inclusion of utility vehicle for official utilization of the Deputy Executive Engineer/MRT/Yerraguntla, for which there is already an existing contract between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner dated 01.06.2019, as illegal and to set aside the tender notification, dated 30.07.2019, in so far as item No.6 of the same.
(2.)This Court has heard Sri A. Srinath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned standing counsel for AP Transco-2nd and 3rd respondents.
(3.)The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has entered into a binding contract with the AP Transco, which is the 2nd respondent for the period 01.06.2019 to 31.03.2020. It is his contention that while the said contract is still in existence a fresh tender has been floated and that the work is sought to be awarded to the third parties. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without canceling the existing contract a fresh tender cannot be called for, let alone awarded to the third respondent. He points out that the initial tender itself was floated in June, 2019 and the floating of a fresh tender soon thereafter on 30.07.2019 is a colourable exercise of power and that the same is being done to prevent the petitioner from carrying out his contractual obligations. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that even when respondents sought to change in the existing vehicle he was prepared to give the same and that the respondents have with an ulterior motive attempted to choose another party to the detriment of the petitioner. Additional documents have also been filed, which show the correspondence between the parties. Learned counsel relies upon a letter addressed by the Deputy Executive Engineer, dt.28.08.2019 recommending the change in the vehicle and accepting the new model suggested by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actions of the respondents are vitiated and that the Writ should be allowed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.