Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Praveen Krishna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 March, 2021
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION No.2526 of 2021
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel Sri M. Manohar Reddy appearing for the 3rd respondent The dispute in this case is about the renewal of the contractor as a registered contractor with the 3rd respondent municipality. The petitioner relies upon G.O.Ms.No.633, HM and UD, dated 10.08.1978 read with G.O.Ms.No.620, MA, dated 07.10.1967, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to be registered as a contractor and to continue with his registration, in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Registration of Contractors) Rules, 1978. It is his contention that the 3rdrespondent-Municipality relies upon G.O.Ms.No.94 Irrigation& CAD Dept., dated 01.07.2003 to negative the request of the petitioner. The petitioner contends in his pleading that 1978 Rules are statutory Rules framed under Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, whereas the G.O.Ms.No.94, relied upon by the Department, is merely an executive instruction. He also relies upon the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Combined High Court reported in Y. Balaramaiah v The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Rajahmundry1 wherein the learned single Judge held that the rules, on which 1 2016 (3) ALD 95 2 petitioner relies upon, will prevail over the G.O.Ms.No.94. As per him the judgment is final and has not been challenged. Despite the same, he submits that his request for renewal of the registration is negatived.
In response to this learned standing counsel Sri M.Manohar Reddy relying upon the counter and its contents argues that G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2013, is being adopted throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh and is also marked through Municipal Administration Minister. According to the learned standing counsel the whole idea behind G.O.Ms.No.94 is to increase the participation of various contractors in the tender process. The said G.O. is a magna carta of e- procurement /tender procedures as per the learned standing counsel. He states that the purpose behind G.O.Ms.No.94 is to encourage more transparent and fair competition. The conventional manual tender system is being eliminated and a new technology based e-procurement system is being encouraged. Learned counsel states that the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed all the Engineering Departments to follow e-procurement system.
This Court after hearing both the counsel notices that despite the pronouncement of the learned single Judge in 2016 till date the legal position has not been reconciled. As rightly held by the learned single Judge, the A.P. Municipalities (Registration of Contractors) Rules, 1978 are framed under a statute. On the other hand, G.O.Ms.No.94 contains mere 3 executive instructions or directions. Therefore, it is clear that the Rules, 1978 will prevail over the executive instructions in G.O.Ms.No.94. While the stand taken by the respondent is admirable and they want to ensure greater participation, the fact remains that the petitioner is entitled to renewal of his registration. Till the rule position is amended and further statutory rules are framed the petitioner is entitled to seek a relief on the basis of the settled law on the subject. There is already an interim direction granted on 29.11.2016 in W.P.No.51044 of 2016, and the memo is, therefore, still suspended. In the circumstances, for all the above mentioned reasons the petitioner is entitled to the relief. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to renewal as a contractor in terms of 1978 Rules.
With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:22.03.2021.
Ssv