THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15999 OF 2010 Dated: 9.7.2010 Between : 1. GMC Retired public health workers & children’s Sankshema Sangham, rep. by its manager Somi Sudhakar And 2 others. … petitioners And 1. The State of A.p. rep. by its principal Secretary, MA & UD Dept., Hyderabad,and 4 others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15999 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioners, three in number, claim to be the societies registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. It is claimed that the members of the societies are the children of the retired public health workers and other members of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. Pursuant to the tender notice, dated 6.1.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent – Guntur Municipal Corporation – inviting sealed tenders for the purpose of undertaking sanitation work in various sanitary divisions of the Corporation, the petitioners were declared as the successful bidders and they were issued work orders. The 1st petitioner was awarded the contract in respect of Package No.25, Sanitary Division No.12 for a period of four months from 1.2.2010 to 31.5.2010. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner was awarded the contract in respect of Package No.5, Sanitary Division No.1, for a period of 3 months and the 3rd petitioner was awarded the contract in respect of Package No.65, Sanitary Division No.MSI-IA for a period of 3 months from 16.2.2010 to 31.5.2010. Accordingly the works were executed and the period of contract came to an end on 31.5.2010. While so, the 2nd respondent issued a fresh tender notice dated 14.5.2010 inviting tenders for a period of six months from 1.6.2010 to 30.11.2010 for undertaking the sanitary works in various divisions, including the divisions in respect of which the petitioners were earlier awarded the contract. This writ petition has been filed challenging the said tender notice dated 14.5.2010 contending inter alia that the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned tender notice, without complying with the various provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as well as the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 with regard to the members of the petitioner societies is arbitrary and illegal. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent had failed to issue Authorization in Form-V to the petitioner societies in respect of the contract awarded to them so as to enable them to register themselves with the Department of Labour as contractors and thus depriving them the benefits such as ESI and EPF. It is also alleged that the 2nd respondent Corporation did not get itself registered as required under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The further allegation is that the 2nd respondent, though deducted the contributions of the petitioner societies towards ESI, did not deposit the same to the ESI Corporation which is an offence punishable under Section 85 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. To substantiate the said allegations, the communication of the Commissioner of Labour, Guntur Zone, dated 3.3.2010 and the proceedings of the Regional Joint Director, ESI Corporation dated 3.6.2010 under which it was informed that the contributions collected towards the share of the employees was accumulated over the period of 1.7.2008 to 30.04.2010 for about 3 years and also the proceedings of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-III, dated 3.2.2010 which indicated that the proceedings under Section 7-A of the EPF Act were pending against the 2nd respondent Corporation for non-production of the record relating to payment of salary/wages in respect of the contract workers have been produced before this Court. On the basis of the above material, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent Corporation who has been acting in total violation of the statutory provisions is liable to be prosecuted and therefore fresh contracts under the impugned tender notice shall not be allowed to take place as the same would enable the 2nd respondent to continue to harass the societies like the petitioners and to de-stabilize the same. It is also contended that the practice being adopted by the 2nd respondent Corporation inviting tenders for a shorter period being impermissible under law, the impugned tender notice is liable to be quashed on that ground also. I have also heard the learned the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Corporation and perused the material available on record. For the alleged failure of the 2nd respondent Corporation to comply with the mandatory requirements under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, proceedings have to be initiated for appropriate penal action as provided under the respective enactments. As a matter of fact, the material placed before this Court shows that the respondents 3 to 5 have already taken notice of the violations allegedly committed by the 2nd respondent Corporation. Hence it is for the respondents 3 to 5 to proceed in accordance with law and at this stage it is not necessary for this court to express any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioners. So far as the fresh tender notice dated 14.5.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent Corporation is concerned, it is to be noticed that the period of contract in favour of all the petitioners expired on 31.5.2010. Therefore, the 2nd respondent Corporation is justified in issuing a fresh tender notice for the period commencing from 1.6.2010. Even assuming that the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent Corporation failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the above said statutes, the same in my considered opinion, does not operate as a bar to invite fresh tenders. It cannot be assumed at this stage that the alleged irregularities would be perpetuated even with regard to the contracts granted w.e.f. 1.6.2010. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the impugned tender notice dated 14.5.2010 is arbitrary or illegal. As a matter of fact, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation under instructions stated that the tenders were already finalized and the contracts were awarded to the successful bidders. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the respondents 3 to 5 to complete the proceedings initiated against the 2nd respondent Corporation under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as well as the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 expeditiously following due process of law. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 09.07.2010 gbs