THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21659 OF 2011 DATED: 16-09-2011 Between: M/s. P.G.M. Infrastructures (P) Limited, rep. By its Director M. Prasad. … Petitioner And 1. Government of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Housing, Secretariat, Hyderabad And 4 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21659 OF 2011 ORDER : The 2nd respondent – A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) - entrusted the construction of 4,096 houses in 128 Blocks (G + 3) Pattern in Sy.No.155 of Aganampudi in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Area under Indiramma Phase-II Programme on nomination basis to the petitioner. Accordingly, an agreement dated 29.10.2008 was entered into between the Corporation and the writ petitioner. Though the period of agreement was 18 months, subsequently it was extended from time to time upto 28.02.2011. According to the petitioner, the project entrusted to it included the infrastructure works as per the minutes of the meeting of Task Force Committee of the Corporation held on 10.07.2008 and the letter of acceptance dated 16.07.2008 issued by the Corporation. This writ petition is filed alleging that though the project entrusted to the petitioner has come to the final stage, the necessary agreement for infrastructure works has not been executed by the respondents and on the other hand the Corporation issued a fresh tender notice inviting separate tenders for infrastructure work. Hence the petitioner seeks a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not executing the agreement for infrastructure work in favour of the petitioner and particularly the action of the respondents in calling for e-procurement tenders for providing infrastructure in JNNURM Colony of Aganampudi, Visakhapatnam District is arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the finishing works of the project entrusted to the petitioner are linked up with infrastructure work and unless and until the said infrastructure work is also entrusted to it by duly executing the necessary agreements, the project work cannot be completed. It is further pleaded that though the said fact was brought to the notice of the Corporation, the infrastructure works have not been granted to the petitioner. Moreover the petitioner was granted extension of time for completing the project after 31.08.2011 making it clear that the price escalation would not be allowed in future. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is pleaded that the infrastructure works which were offered to the petitioner are basic infrastructure works sanctioned for the colony by the District Collector for Rs.287.61 Lakhs and the same were already entrusted to the Corporation by entering into an agreement dated 11.03.2009. It is explained that by G.O.Ms.No.851, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (UBS) Department, dated 19.06.2009, the construction of houses with infrastructure facilities in different locations of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Area has been brought under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) with the funding pattern among Central Government, State Government and A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited / Beneficiary contribution and administrative sanction for construction of 9,103 houses with infrastructure facilities has been accorded. As per JNNURM Housing Scheme, the unit cost of houses has been enhanced to Rs.1,96,500/- from Rs.1,43,000/- and additional infrastructure facilities have been sanctioned which have nothing to do with the infrastructure facilities that were sanctioned under Indiramma Urban Programme Phase-II. Under JNNURM Scheme, the Government of India had also sanctioned civic infrastructure in the colony like overhead storage reservoir, water supply lines, underground drainage, sewage treatment plants, solid waste disposal, CC roads, electrification, etc., at a cost of Rs.1965.98 Lakhs. It is also explained that the basic infrastructure works of the colony that were entrusted to the petitioner included site levelling, construction of catchment drain, gravel roads and water supply works at an estimated value of Rs.287.61 Lakhs as mentioned in the offer letter dated 16.07.2008 and the said works were already entrusted to the petitioner. It is also pleaded that since the new infrastructure works sanctioned under JNNURM Project were separate works which were required to be entrusted by calling tenders, the respondents had invited tenders on e-procurement basis. The plea of the petitioner that the housing project entrusted to the petitioner is interlinked with the infrastructure works which are the subject-matter of the impugned e-procurement tender has been denied and it is stated that the tenders called for on 21.07.2011 by the Corporation through e-procurement for civic infrastructure works sanctioned under JNNURM were quite different from the infrastructure works that were entrusted to the petitioner on nomination basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while submitting that the infrastructure work for which tenders are invited relates to the same layout that has been entrusted to the petitioner and that the finishing works of the housing project is linked up with the infrastructure work, vehemently contended that the project cannot be completed unless and until the infrastructure works are also entrusted to the petitioner by entering into the necessary agreements. The learned counsel further contended that the impugned action of the respondents in not entering into such agreements with the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal apart from being contrary to the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation while reiterating the contents of the counter-affidavit submitted that the construction of the houses entrusted to the petitioner as well as the in- house services like water supply, electricity and sanitary connections are in progress and they are in no way related to the civic infrastructure works sanctioned under JNNURM and the contention of the petitioner that the said civic infrastructure works shall also be entrusted to it is untenable and misconceived. Admittedly the petitioner was entrusted the construction of houses under Indiramma Urban Programme at Aganampudi by the Corporation on nomination basis in the year 2008. It is true that as per the minutes of the meeting dated 10.07.2008, the infrastructure works shall also be entrusted to the same contractor, who has been entrusted with the construction of houses in the project, and accordingly in the letter of acceptance dated 16.07.2008 as well as the agreement dated 29.10.2008 entered into between the Corporation and the petitioner, it was mentioned that the petitioner would be entrusted the infrastructure works. However under the impugned e-procurement notice, tenders have been invited for providing infrastructure in JNNURM Colony of Aganampudi, Visakhapatnam. The estimated contract value was mentioned as Rs.67,975,620/- and the period of completion was specified as six months. The material placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the Corporation shows that the administrative sanction for construction of 9,103 houses with infrastructure facilities in different locations of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Area under Sub-Mission on basic services for urban poor under JNNURM was accorded on 19.6.2009 i.e., long after the entrustment of the project to the petitioner on nomination basis. The particulars furnished in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents make it clear that the additional civic facilities proposed to be provided under JNNURM are entirely different from the infrastructural works that were included in the project entrusted to the petitioner. Hence the vague plea of the petitioner that the impugned tenders have been invited on e-procurement platform for the very same infrastructure works which were entrusted to it cannot be accepted and consequently the impugned action of the respondents in inviting fresh tenders cannot be found fault with. I do not find substance even in the allegation of the petitioner that the infrastructural works to which they are entitled to as per the letter of acceptance and the agreement have not been entrusted to them so far. The learned counsel for the Corporation has placed before this Court separate agreements executed between the petitioner and the Corporation on 11.03.2009 in respect of providing infrastructure facilities to Indiramma Urban Phase-II. The said agreements make it clear that the infrastructure works were already entrusted to the petitioner in terms of letter of acceptance dated 16.07.2008. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the action of the respondents in inviting tenders on e- procurement platform for providing infrastructure in JNNURM colony is arbitrary or illegal. Hence the Writ of Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, which is devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.09.2011 gbs