HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.24795 of 2011 Date : 16-11-2011 Between: A.P. Seeds Kotam Raju Represented by its Maistry (representative) Sagi Kotam Raju, Vijayawada, Krishna District .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.S. Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Government Pleader for Agriculture Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Sri Ch. Shyamsunder Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner as Hamali Mutta as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a consequential relief of setting aside the tender notification published on 20-8-2011 by respondent No.3. I have heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch. Shyamsunder Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner styled itself as Hamali Mutta. It has pleaded that its members have been engaged as hamalis by respondent No.3 for the last 40 years on rate basis. These hamalis are involved in loading and unloading, stocking of seeds, drying, processing and classifying seeds and allied activities like loading pellets, kerosene drums, acid drums, polyethylene containers etc. The petitioner alleged that as bills from the month of July 2011 were not cleared, when the members of the petitioner requested respondent No.3 to pay money, the latter has issued notification dated 20-8-2011 whereby he has invited tenders for doing hamali work at the godowns run by respondent No.3. The tender notification has fixed 6-9-2011 as the date of auction. Feeling aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 wherein it is stated that once in every 15 days, the bills are prepared as per the muster and money is paid based on the work discharged by the petitioner-mutta and that the respondents have decided to discontinue with the present system and switch over to that of outsourcing hamali work at all the units of respondent No.1-Corporation. As part of the said policy, the tender notification has been issued. The respondents asserted that by calling for tenders, none of the rights of the members of the petitioner- Mutta have been infringed. At the hearing, Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of respondent No.3 is mala fide as the impugned tender notification is issued as a vengeance as members of the petitioner-mutta demanded payment of the bills from July 2011. The learned counsel further submitted that the members of the petitioner-Mutta have been working for the last 40 years and that they will be deprived of their livelihood if the tender system is followed. He further submitted that apart from non-payment of arrears, respondent No.3 has unjustly made certain deductions from the wages payable to the members of the petitioner-Mutta and even before making payments, respondent No.3 has been attempting to displace the members of the petitioner- Mutta with a new set of hamalis. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 reiterated their stand taken in the counter-affidavit. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The assertion of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that in pursuance of a policy decision taken by respondent No.2 to switch over from the present system and adopt the system of outsourcing the hamalis, the impugned notification is issued, is not disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner failed to make out a case of violation of any of the legal or constitutional rights of its members. By the mere fact that the members of the petitioner-Mutta have been working for quite some years would not create any vested right in them to prevent respondent Nos.2 and 3 from pursuing their own policy in the matter of engaging the hamalis. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that in pursuance of the tender notification even the petitioner-Mutta has filed its tender and that in compliance with the direction of this court, the tender process is not finalized. In the light of these facts, I am of the opinion that the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in issuing the impugned tender notification cannot be termed as illegal and/or unconstitutional. With regard to the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has not cleared the arrears, the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that if any arrears are payable to the members of the petitioner-mutta, they will be paid. As regards the submission that certain illegal deductions are made, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate that the petitioner makes a representation to respondent No.3. If such a representation is received, respondent No.3 shall examine the same, take a decision thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner-Mutta. The arrears, if any payable to the members of the petitioner shall be paid within a period of one month from today and a decision on the alleged illegal deductions shall be taken within the same period and communicate the same to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, interim order dated 5-9-2011 is vacated and WPMP No.30486/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 16-11-2011 Note : Furnish copy in a week. AM