Telangana High Court
Sri Kudumula Ramreddy vs The State Of Telangana on 22 July, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 17539 OF 2022
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings No. A1/152/KLKY/2022, dated 01.04.2021 (dated 01.04.2022) issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to enter into the agreement of lease with the petitioner in respect of cattle market Kalwakurthy Town as per the notification No. A1/535/2022, dated 17.03.2022 by cancelling the allotment of the said contract to the 3rd respondent.
2. Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has issued a tender notification on 17.03.2022 inviting bids from the public for cattle market, Tai bazar and slaughter house for the year 2022- 23 ie. from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 and the said notification was published in Telugu newspaper on 18.03.2022. It is stated that as per the said notification, the bidders have to submit their bids on or before 23.02.2022 by 05.00 P.M. and they will be opened on 24.03.2022 at 11.00 a.m. It is also stated that the petitioner participated in the auction in respect of cattle market 2 and Tai bazar and he paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent by way of two DDs. bearing Nos. 661451 and 661452 towards deposit. Learned counsel submits that the 2nd respondent acknowledged receipt of the said amount by way of DDs. and issued receipts in favour of the petitioner. He submits that tenders were opened on 24.03.2022 and the petitioner was declared as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.1,11,22,000/- for cattle market and the 3rd respondent stood as the second highest bidder for Rs.1,11,21,000/- and the same was even published in newspapers. He further submits that the petitioner was waiting for allotment letter from the 2nd respondent and has been pursuing the same with the 2nd respondent's office. It is stated that on 01.04.2022, the petitioner received proceedings by WhatsApp that the lease of the cattle market of Kalwakurthy Municipality was allotted to the 3rd respondent who is the second highest bidder as the petitioner did not turn up for payment of one-fourth bid amount towards agreement. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent on 01.04.2022 paid one- fourth of total bid amount of Rs.27,80,250/-. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner is the highest bidder, without issuing any notice and without any proceedings, saying 3 that the petitioner has failed to pay the amount, they have awarded the contract in favour of the unofficial respondent. He submits that the petitioner is not aware of payment of one- fourth amount as the particular date was not mentioned in the auction notification, till he received the communication from the respondent Municipality. It is stated that the action of the 2nd respondent is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice as either under the tender conditions or under the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, there is no condition of depositing one-fourth amount. Learned counsel submits that when once the petitioner has been declared as the highest tenderer, without any further notice, the 2nd respondent has no authority to allot contract in favour of the unofficial respondent.
3. Learned Standing Counsel Sri N. Praveen Kumar appearing for the 2nd respondent Municipality filed a counter- affidavit. He submits that as the tender period is going to start from 01.04.202, the highest bidder has to pay one-fourth of the bid amount to the municipality by 01.04.2022. It is stated that the petitioner failed to pay the amount even after the reminder through message dated 01.04.2022. It is also stated that the petitioner participated in Thai Bazar auction on 24.03.2022 and 4 paid one-fourth amount on 31.03.2022. It is stated that as the petitioner expressed his inability in spite of the reminder from the municipality, they have collected the amount from the 3rd respondent and allotted the contract in his favour. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. He further submits that having paid one-fourth amount in respect of Thai Bazar, the petitioner has failed to pay the amount in respect of cattle market, that itself shows that the petitioner is not ready to pay the amount. Learned Standing Counsel submits that as per the tender, when the period starts from 01.04.2022, the auction amount has to be paid before that time. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has requested the petitioner to pay the said amount at 11.00 a.m. and the petitioner failed to respond. As the Sunday cattle market is falling on 03.04.2022 and there was a public holiday on 02.04.2022 on the occasion of Ugadi festival, it is stated that the 2nd respondent was left with no other option but to request the petitioner to enter into agreement by way of phone message and calls. According to the learned Standing Counsel, as the petitioner failed to respond and the tender period starting date already approached, the 2nd respondent was left with only choice to call the second highest bidder.
54, A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the unofficial respondent. Sri Kiran Palakurthy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent submits that as the petitioner failed to pay the amount, the 2nd respondent rightly allotted the work in favour of the 3rd respondent and the impugned proceedings dated 01.04.2022 is legal and agreement of lease between the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent is valid. He submits that the tender notification was issued on 17.03.2022 for cattle market, Thai Bazar and Slaughter house. It is stated that when the petitioner became the successful bidder for cattle market and Thai bazaar, when he could pay one-fourth amount for Thai bazaar, for cattle market, he cannot plead ignorance that he is not aware of the same. Learned counsel submits that the 3rd respondent had paid the amount on 01.04.2022 itself. He submits that during pendency of the petition, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and paid the money representing that there is an order from the Court on 15.06.2022 and the 2nd respondent also received money and issued receipt to the petitioner. It is stated that the 3rd respondent came to know about the said fact by way of WhatsApp status of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits 6 that conveniently the petitioner has suppressed these facts and approached this Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record.
6. The 2nd respondent has issued the auction notification to lease out cattle market, thai bazaar and slaughter house. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has become the highest bidder. According to the Municipality, the petitioner has to pay one-fourth of the amount first and as the petitioner failed to pay the same even though reminders were issued on 01.04.2022, the 2nd respondent has allotted the contract in favour of the unofficial respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner along with the Writ Petition filed the auction notification. In Clause 4, it is mentioned that 'as per Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, one-fourth of the money can be paid and rest of the money can be paid on monthly basis. To avail the monthly basis they have to deposit collateral mortgage or bank guarantee under the "Commissioner of Municipal, Kalwakurthy"
and along with that, they have to submit relevant post-paid cheques mandatory. Before December 31st, they have to pay the equal amount which they have to pay'. In none of the tender conditions or in the Municipalities Act, except stating that one- 7 fourth amount has to be paid, there is no mention about when the said one-fourth amount has to be paid. Even in the counter- affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, they state that they have asked the petitioner to pay the amount on 01.04.2022 and on the said date itself, they have issued the contract in favour of the unofficial respondent. When the petitioner is the highest bidder and when the auction notification does not specify what is the timeframe for payment of one-fourth amount, the 2nd respondent cannot say that the petitioner failed to pay. Even assuming that they have asked the petitioner by way of WhatsApp messages on 1st, without even waiting for that day, they have issued the contract in favour of the unofficial respondent which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The 2nd respondent is supposed to mention in the tender conditions with regard to the payments that have to be made by the parties but without doing so, by giving a reminder on 1st to the petitioner, they have taken the money from the unofficial respondent. The action of the 2nd respondent on the face of it is arbitrary. This Court is not able to appreciate the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner being the highest bidder in respect of both Thai Bazar and cattle market, having paid for Thai Bazar, cannot plead that he is not aware of 8 the same, it has no legs to stand for the reason that the tender conditions are silent about the time-frame and without there being any time-frame, it is not open for them to contend that 01.04.2022 is the date when one-fourth amount has to be paid. Even according to them, they have sent a message to the petitioner i.e. on 1st and without waiting for the same giving the contract in favour of the unofficial respondent itself shows that the action on the part of the 2nd respondent is not fair.
7. Earlier, when the matter came up, on a query from this Court, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has not paid the money. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready to deposit the money before the 2nd respondent. Because of the arbitrary action on the part of the respondent Municipality, now the unofficial respondent has to face the consequences for no fault of him.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the proceedings No. A1/152/KLKY/2022 dated 01.04.2022 issued in favour of the unofficial respondent is set aside. The official respondents are directed to entrust the work to the petitioner and any amounts that have to be returned to the unofficial respondent shall be returned within a period of two weeks from 9 the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand automatically closed.
-----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 22nd July 2022 ksld 10 11