IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos.3177, 3178, 3179, 3192 and 3194 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No.3177 of 2008: Between: Puchakayala Krishna S/o Maisaiah R/o Mahabubabad, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat rep by its Panchayat Secretary, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. 2 Mahabubabad Gram panchayat rep by its Sarpanch, Mahabubabad Warangal District 3 Puchakayala Madhusudhan S/o Sri Ramachander, R/o Hanumanthuni Gadda, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 20-7-2007 and Rc. N. 279/2/GPM/2007/A1, dated 19-01- 2008 of the 1st respondent entrusting the contract works mentioned in item NO.2 of the tender Notification dt 28-03- 2007 to the 3rd respondents as highly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the resolution dated 20-07-2007 and also the orders dated 22-08-2007 in WP No. 13929/2007 and consequently set a side the impugned proceedings dt 20- 7-2007 and Rc.No. 279/GPM/07/A1, dt 19-01-2008 by directing the respondents 1 & 2 to allow the petitioner to do the contract works as per the orders dt 23-04-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Mrs.G.ELISHA Counsel for the Respondent 3: None appeared. WRIT PETITION NO : 3178 of 2008 Between: Punchakayala DEvender S/o. P.Venkaiah R/o. Mahabubabad, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. 2 Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Sarpanch, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. 3 Tapetla Veranna S/o. Gopal Rao, R/o. Hanumathuni Gadda Mahabubabad, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned proceeding dated 20-7-2007 and Rc.No.279/3/GPM/2007/A1, dated 19-01-2008 of the 1st respondent entrusting the contract work mentioned in item No.3 of the tender notification dt.28-03-2007 to the 3rd respondent as highly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the resolution dated 20-07-2007 and also the orders dt.22-08-2007 in W.P.No.139127/2007 and consequently set aside the impugned proceeding dated 20-7-2007 and Rc.No.279/3/GPM/07/A1, dt.19-01-2008 by directing the respondents 1 & 2 to allow the petitioner to do the contract works as per the ordersdt.23-04-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Mrs.G.ELISHA Counsel for the Respondent 3: None appeared. WRIT PETITION NO : 3179 of 2008 Between: Kampati Ramesh S/o. Lingaiah R/o. Mahabubabad, Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. 2 Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat Rep. by its Sarpanch, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. 3 Puchakayala Jagan S/o. Ramchander R/o. Hanumanthuni Gadda, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 20-7-2007 and Rc.No.279/4/GPM/2007/A1, dated 19-01- 2008 of the 1st respondent entrusting the contract works mentioned in item No.4 of the tender notification dt. 28-03- 2007 to the 3rd respondent as highly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the resolution dated 20-07-2007 and also the orders dt. 22-08-2007 in W.P.No.13896/2007 and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings dated 20-7- 2007 and Rc.No.279/4/GPM/07/A1, dt. 19-01-2008 by directing the respondents 1 & 2 to allow the petitioner to do the contract works as per the orders dt.23-04-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Mrs.G.ELISHA Counsel for the Respondent 3: None appeared. WRIT PETITION NO : 3192 of 2008 Between: Jinuka Yellaiah S/o. Guravaiah R/o. Mahabubabad, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary, Mahabubabad , Warangal District. 2 Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Sarpanch, Mahabubabad , Warangal District. 3 Puchakayala Ramana S/o. Sri Kasim R/o.Near Bank Colony, Mahabubad, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ fo Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dt. 20-7-2007 and Rc No. 279/5/GPM/2007/A1 dt. 19-1-2008 of the 1st respondent entrusing the contract works mentioned in item NO.5 of the tender notification dt. 28-3-2007 to the 3rd respondent as highly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the resolution dt. 20-7-2007 and also the orders dt.22- 8-2007 in WP No. 13888/2007 and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings dt. 20-7-2007 and Rc No. 279/5/GPM/07/A1 dt. 19-1-2008 by directing the respondents 1 & 2 to allow the petitioner to do the contract works as per the orders dt. 23-4-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Mrs.G.ELISHA Counsel for the Respondent 3: None appeared. WRIT PETITION NO : 3194 of 2008 Between: Punchakayala Krishna, S/o. Maisaiah, R/o. Mahabubabad, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. 2 Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Sarpanch, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. 3 Puchakayala Madhusudhan, S/o. Sri Ramachander, R/o. Hanumathuni Gadda Mahabubabad, Warangal District. .RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned proceeding dated 20-7-2007 and Rc.No.279/1/GPM/2007/A1, dated 19- 01-2008 of the 1st respondent entrusting the contract work mentioned in item No.3 of the tender notification dt.28- 03-2007 to the 3rd respondent as highly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the resolution dated 20-07-2007 and also the orders dt.22-08-2007 in W.P.No.139128/2007 and consequently set aside the impugned proceeding dated 20- 7-2007 and Rc.No.279/1/GPM/07/A1, dt.19-01-2008 by directing the respondents 1 & 2 to allowthe petitioner todo the contract works as per the ordersdt.23-04-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Mrs.G.ELISHA Counsel for the Respondent 3: None appeared. The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Since similar questions involve in all the five writ petitions, I deem it proper to dispose of the same by way of this common order. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the notification dated 28.03.2007 issued by the 1st respondent inviting tenders for carrying on various works, the petitioners submitted tenders for various items of works to be executed for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and the first respondent by resolution dated 23.04.2007 awarded the contracts in their favour in respect of items of tendered works submitted by them. While so, the existing workers working on contract basis filed O.A.No.2005 of 2007 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking a direction to direct the respondents herein to regularize their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994. It is stated that the Tribunal granted interim direction to maintain status-quo and therefore, the persons working on the date of finalisation of contract works were continued to work. It is stated that the persons whose tenders were lowest than the petitioners have not been entrusted with the work pursuant to the tender notification, dated 24.03.2007, they have filed writ petitions and one of such W.P.No.13929 of 2007 was disposed of by order dated 22.08.2007 on the ground that in view of the pendency of O.A.No.2005 of 2007,the Gram Panchayat did not finalise the tenders and that the work is being attended by the labour contractor who was engaged for labour contract and it was also reported that the Gram Panchayat has cancelled the tenders and decided to continue the casual labour/NMR employees as per the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2005 of 2007 and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed keeping it open for the Gram Panchayat to issue fresh tenders in view of the orders of the Tribunal and in view of the disposal of the said writ petition, the O.A.No.2005 of 2007 was also dismissed by order dated 03.12.2007. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as the said O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal filed by the contract labour rejecting their claims, the petitioners who are the successful tenderers are entitled to carry on the work pursuant to the award of the works for the remaining period i.e. up to 31.03.2008. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that in fact, all the proceedings pursuant to the tender notification dated 23.04.2007 awarding the contracts was resolved to be cancelled vide resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 20.07.2007 and as the O.A. was pending it was resolved to permit the contract labour to continue the work. It is further stated that after dismissal of the said O.A., the Gram Panchayat could not call for the tenders in view of the fact that short period is left over for the contract period of 2007-08. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat considered the issue of awarding contract works in the meeting held on 18.01.2008 and the Gram Panchayat passed resolution wherein it was decided to award the work in favour of the lowest tenderers pursuant to the earlier notification and thus, the respondent No.3 in all the writ petitions who became the lowest tenderers have been awarded the work and they have been carrying on the work from 19.01.2008 onwards. Thus, there is no dispute about carrying on the work by the 3rd respondent in all the writ petitions pursuant to the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 18.01.2008. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the nature of the work which has to be executed every day i.e. cleaning the streets, drains, roads etc., the lowest tenderers alone have been entrusted the work though some of them have not been awarded the contract on the earlier occasion on the ground that necessary experience certificates have not been produced and for ending this year, only one month one week is left over. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that though the acts of the Gram Panchayat is not justified in awarding the contract works without calling for the tenders, but having regard to the facts of the case and in view of paucity of time, I am not inclined to interfere with the said action and entertain the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue tender notification well in advance for awarding contract works for the next year i.e. from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Date:21.02.2008 ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}