AUTOTRONIC ELEVATOR SERVICES HYDERABAD Vs. ELECTRICAL ENGINEER GL PWD AND R AND B NAMPALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ for hearing the respondents 1 to 3 from entrusting comprehensive maintenance of 19 lifts (OTIS LIFTS) on the nomination basis to the manufacturers and for a direction to follow the system of tender to attend the comprehensive maintenance of the lifts as was done from the year 1983 to 1985.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are having number of lifts of which 19 lifts were manufactured and installed by the fourth respondent Otis Elevators Company (I) Ltd. For the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 tenders were called for. The petitioner is the lowest tenderer to effect maintenance. After the expiry of two years with effect from 31-3-1985 and pending taking decision whether a tender system should be continued or not, the petitioner was permitted to carry on maintenance on monthly nomination basis on the same rate which he tendered. When he has been continuing, the third respondent, Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Roads and Buildings now decided to give the maintenance work to fourth respondent on nomination basis at a rate 35% higher than the rates at which the petitioner is offering. It is his case that three successive Electrical engineers have recommended for giving on tender basis and it is also approved by the Superintendenting Engineer. But the third respondent, Chief Engineer for his own reasons, has given a go-by to the tender system and has fallen back on the nomination basis. This action of respondents is arbitrary under Art. 14 of the Constitution preventing equally eligible persons like petitioner to participate in the tender and be one of the successful tenderers in effecting the repairs.

(3.) A counter has been filed by one A. Gopala Kishanrao, Electrical Engineer on behalf of the respondents. He admitted that the petitioner is the lowest tenderer in the previous years. The tender offered by the fourth-respondent was high, therefore, the petitioner was preferred and he continued as Maintenance Engineer of the lifts for two previous years and for this year he continued up-to-date on nomination basis. It is admitted that there was no complaint against the petitioner with regard to the maintenance effected by the petitioner. It is also admitted that the rates quoted by the fourth respondent is 35% higher than what was offered by the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that from the year 1975 to 1983 the fourth respondent was attending to the maintenance of the lifts and due to labour trouble the fourth respondent discontinued and thereafter the petitioner was given on tender basis. It is further contended that with a view to effect quality, better service and to avoid risk to the user of the lift, it was decided that the maintenance work of the lifts be given to the fourth respondent. It is further pleaded that it is a policy decision and is at the discretion of the Chief Engineer as to whom the work has to be entrusted for maintenance. The fourth respondent is manufacturer, the spare-parts are not available in the open market. The petitioner has no right under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is only a contractual right. He has no legal right to the contract and has not been infringed. The policy of the Government in the matter of technical function is outside the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Maintenance of lifts is a specialised work and it cannot be entrusted to sundry organisation. It is for the department to formulate a policy and it is not open to the petitioner to assail the policy of the department. The fourth respondent filed a counter practically on the line of defence taken by A. Gopala Kishanrao Electrical Engineer on behalf of the respondents. It is further stated that the work has already been entrusted to the fourth respondent.