THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.12997 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioners are dealers and suppliers of various electrical and electronic items, including the Timers. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad intended to arrange timers for its street lighting system and approached the Government for approval. After examination of the matter, the Government in Municipal Administration Department issued G.O.Ms.No.468, dated 14.09.2000, approving certain items of machinery in this regard. The cost of single phase timer with single phase load of 63 Amps was certified at Rs.10,750/-, per unit. The Council of erstwhile Nellore Municipality passed a resolution, dated 31.01.2003, sanctioning a sum of Rs.38,55,000/- for providing timer systems for street lights in the town, with an object of saving consumption of electricity. Through three separate orders, dated 04.02.2003, the Commissioner of Municipality, the 1st respondent, places orders on the petitioners for supply of 100 units each. By referring to G.O.Ms.No.468, dated 14.09.2000, the rate was stipulated at Rs.10,750/- + 8% tax. The petitioners were required to install the timers and produce the quality certificates issued by the A.P. Transco. The petitioners state that they have installed the timers and furnished the quality certificates issued by the A.P. Transco. The petitioners were not paid any amount. Through his proceedings, dated 01.07.2003, the 1st respondent informed the petitioners that in its resolution passed at the meeting held on 30.06.2003, the Municipal Council took an objection for placing of orders on them without inviting tenders. It was also stated that the quality of the timers supplied by the petitioners was found to be not upto the specifications and that timers are not functioning properly. Stating these grounds, the 1st respondent cancelled the orders placed on the petitioners, and the petitioners were required to take the material supplied by them. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the said proceedings. It is stated that the impugned proceedings are violative of the principles of natural justice and that there was absolutely no basis for cancellation of the orders, which the respondents themselves placed upon the petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the amount involved is huge and still the orders were placed without inviting tenders. It is also stated by the respondents that the petitioners have supplied timers to various municipalities and municipal corporations in the city and uniformly there are complaints, to the effect that the timers are not functioning at all. An enquiry ordered by the State Government is said to be pending. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. A perusal of the orders, dated 04.02.2003, discloses that the petitioners filed their quotations to the municipality, offering to supply the timers, and on a consideration of the same, the Municipal Council passed a resolution on 31.01.2003 sanctioning a sum of Rs.38,55,000/-. Reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.468, dated 14.09.2000. The petitioners have supplied the timers based on the orders placed upon them. About five months thereafter, the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings, canceling the orders, dated 04.02.2003. The reasons mentioned in the proceedings for cancellation of the supply order are as under: “1. The quality of the material supplied for the automatic timer system is not upto the standard of specifications and timers are not functioning property. 2. The supply order was issued for such a huge amount without calling for tender.” The 1st respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioners, before the impugned order was passed. Had a notice been given to the petitioners, they would have offered their own explanation for that. It is a different matter, as to whether the explanation offered by the petitioners would have been accepted or not. The impugned proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice. The very fact that the 1st respondent required the petitioners to take back the timers discloses that there is no dispute as to installation thereof. In case the timers were defective and not upto the prescribed standard, the 1st respondent ought to have called upon the petitioners either to rectify the defects, or to replace the timers. No such exercise was undertaken and straight away the impugned order was passed. Even if an enquiry is pending, as to the quality of the material supplied by the petitioners to various municipalities, they cannot be denied the total payment for the material supplied by them to the 1st respondent. This Court is of the view that, at least, part payment can be directed and to require the respondents to decide the matter one way or the other duly following the procedure. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 01.07.2003, as being violative of principles of natural justice. It is directed that the 1st respondent shall pay 1/4th of the cost of the materially supplied by the petitioners within a period of two months from today. It shall be open to the respondents to initiate proceedings against the petitioners, be it as regards quality of the material or violation of the conditions, and finalize the matter within a period of three months. The payment of the balance of consideration shall depend upon the out come of the enquiry that may be held as directed above. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.10.06.2010. GJ