IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13110 of 2008 Between: 1 Indira Parisudya Workers Welfare Society, Kavali, Nellore District, Society No. 458/2006, rep by its President Ch. Jeevarathnam. 2 The Chenchugari Palem Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Labour Contract Cooperative Society, Ltd., Kavali Village, & mandal, Nellore District, rep by its President Chenna Rao/ 3 The Rudrakota Scheduled Caste labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd., Rudrakota Village, kavali Mandal, Nellore District, N.r. No. 628 rep by its President, JPrasad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad. 3 Kavali Municipaltiy, rep by its Commissioner, Kavali, Nellore 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 may be pleased to issue Writ or direction particularly in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring proceedings in ROC No. 1476/2008/E2, dated 13- 6-2008, so far item Nos. 1,2, & 4 are concerned on the ﬁle of the Commissioner of the 3rd respondent as illegal, void and arbitrary and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to entrust the works notiﬁed , without subjecting the petitioners to tender process in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 30, dated 18-1-2008 on the ﬁle of the 1st respondent and pass such other order or orders as this hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.R.AVULA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. S.NAGESWARA RAO, STANDING COUNSEL. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners, who are 3 in number, assailing the action of the respondents in not setting apart a portion of the works for allotment on nomination basis as per the terms in G.O.Ms.No.30 M.A., Dated 18.01.2008. 2. The petitioners are the Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act. Kavali Municipality-3rd respondent entrusted sanitation works to the Indira Parisudya Workers Welfare Society-1st petitioner in the years 2006 and 2007. Likewise, the Chenchugari Palem Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Labour Contract cooperative Society Ltd, Kavali village-2nd petitioner was entrusted the work of supplying labour for repairing pipes, taps, and pipelines for supply of water in 3rd respondent-Municipality vide proceedings dated 20.08.2007. Similarly, the Rudrakota Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd., Rudrakota village-3rd petitioner was entrusted the work of supplying labour for repairing street lights in the 3rd respondent Municipality vide proceedings dated 20.08.2007. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.30 MA, dated 18.01.2008 directing the Municipalities and Corporations to entrust a portion of the sanitation work to the Societies formed by the sanitary workers unions without participating in the tenders. The 3rd respondent Municipality issued tender notice in ROC No.1476/2008/E2, dated 13.06.2008, calling for tenders on or before 28.06.2008 for ﬁve items without setting apart any portion of those ﬁve items for allotment to the petitioners Societies on nomination basis as provided under G.O.Ms.No.30 MA, dated 18.01.2008. 3. When this writ petition came up for admission, learned Standing Counsel of Kavali Municipality received notice and sought time for filing counter-affidavit. 4. The 3rd respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. G.C.Penchalaiah, Municipal Commissioner, Kavali Municipality, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter- aﬃdavit that a portion of sanitation works is to be entrusted to the Societies formed by the sanitary workers union on nomination basis. For better appreciation, I may refer paras.6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit and they read as hereunder: “6. It is submitted that in reply to para.5 it is true that the 3rd respondent issued tender notiﬁcation dt.13.06.2008 pursuant to the powers vested by G.O.Ms.No.581, dated 06.11.1996 of the 1st respondent, calling for sealed tenders for entrustment of sanitary work in the 3rd respondent Municipality by 28.06.2008. It is not true to say that the 3rd respondent has neither power nor jurisdiction to issue the tender notiﬁcation in way of the stipulation engrafted to Sec.43(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, entrusting the power of dealing with the contracts exceeding the monitory limits mentioned in (1) of Sec.43. The Chairman of the Kavali Municipality on 05.05.2008 in Roc.No.952/08-F1 given in anticipation order to issue tender notiﬁcation subject to the approval of the council which was ratified by the council in C.R.No.457, dt.31.05.2008. 7. It is submitted that it is true that the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.30, dt.18.01.2000 modifying G.O.Ms.No.581, dt.16.11.1996 directing all Municipalities to entrust a portion of sanitation work to the societies formed by the sanitary workers union without participating tenders. In fact in Kavali Municipal area all the contract societies formed by the sanitary workers belongs to SC, ST and Badhili workers. Due to heavy competition the 3rd respondent Municipality issued tender notiﬁcation to all the 6 zones. Even to entrust a portion of sanitary work to the sanitary societies the 3rd respondent Municipality is not able to decide to whom it has to be entrusted on nomination basis. It is the fundamental duty of the any Municipality to follow the G.O’s issued by the Government from time to time.” 5. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 7. The third respondent Municipality has speciﬁcally stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that it is bound to follow G.O.Ms.No.30 MA, dated 18.01.2008, whereunder a portion of the works are to be entrusted to the Societies formed by the sanitary workers union on nomination basis. 8. In that view of the matter, the tender notice in ROC No.1476/2008/E2, dated 13.06.2008, issued by the 3rd respondent Municipality without setting apart any portion of the works for being allotted to the Societies formed by the sanitary workers union on nomination basis is set aside. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage reserving the liberty to the 3rd respondent Municipality to issue fresh tender notiﬁcation so as to be in tune with the terms in G.O.Ms.No.30 MA, dated 18.01.2008. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:03rd November, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}