Telangana High Court
Yerukala Balaramudu vs State Of Telangana on 30 August, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 23851 of 2024
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 3, Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
2. Petitioner contends that it was initially granted contract for collection of chicken/mutton/fish waste for the period 10.07.2023 to 09.07.2024; that the petitioner having suffered loss during the said period of contract, had approached the 2nd respondent-authority and sought for grant of extension of the contract; that the 2nd respondent- authority by considering the request made by the petitioner, had extended the validity of the contract for the period from 10.07.2024 to 09.07.2025; and that the 2 petitioner had made further remittance of Rs.75,000/- as license fee for grant of such extension.
3. Petitioner further contends that while the 2nd respondent-authority had extended the validity of the contract for the further period of one year up to 09.07.2025, a writ petition came to be filed vide W.P.No.21418 of 2024 by one G.Venkatanna alleging that the aforesaid extension granted without causing any publication inviting bids from the intending participants, as being illegal and arbitrary; and that this Court by order, dt.07.08.2024 in IA.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.21418 of 2024, had suspended the aforesaid extension granted in favour of the petitioner by permitting the 2nd respondent to continue to avail the services of the petitioner only up to 31.08.2024.
4. Petitioner further contends that if this Court were to hold the aforesaid extension of contract to be illegal having been granted without issuing tenders inviting applications from interested parties, the petitioner having paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- for the entire period of one year, would suffer monetary loss and hardship, as he had paid 3 the aforesaid amount considering that the contract is being extended for a further period of one year; and thus, the action of the respondents-authorities in causing advertisement inviting fresh bids on 27.08.2024, is illegal and arbitrary.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the action of the 2nd respondent in granting extension has been assailed by one G.Venkatanna before this Court by filing Writ Petition vide W.P.No.21418 of 2024 mainly on the ground that the 2nd respondent does not have power or authority to grant extension, and this Court having prima facie found that the said authority could not have granted extension of the contract in favour of the petitioner without insisting fresh bids, suspended the extension granted in favour of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that this Court however, taking into consideration the maintenance of civic amenities and for ensuring hygiene in the locality of the Municipality, permitted the 2nd respondent to continue to avail the services of the petitioner till 31.08.2024.
4
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that it is pursuant to the indulgence granted by this Court for continuing the services of the petitioner till 31.08.2024, the 2nd respondent had caused paper publication inviting tenders from the interested parties for lifting of chicken/mutton/fish waste for the period 03.09.2024 to 02.09.2025 fixing the base upset price as Rs.2 lakhs, while the petitioner was granted extension by only collecting a sum of Rs.75,000/-.
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that it is also open of the petitioner to take part in the tender process and if declared as successful bidder therein, the petitioner would be eligible to seek adjustment from the amount paid earlier i.e., Rs.75,000/- after adjusting the amount payable for 52 days after expiry of original contract period on pro-rata basis.
8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that in the event of the petitioner being declared unsuccessful in the said tender process, the authorities would refund the balance amount from and out of the amount of 5 Rs.75,000/- paid by it after deducting the amount for 52 days on pro-rata basis for allowing the petitioner to lift the chicken/Mutton/fish waste.
9. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.
10. Firstly, it is to be noted that the 2nd respondent- Municipality, being a public authority, could not have extended the validity of the contract without issuing a tender inviting bids from the General public intending to take up the work by causing publication.
11. Secondly, a perusal of Section 52 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, does not confer any power on the 2nd respondent-authority to grant extension of contract.
12. That being so, the extension of the contract by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner for a further period of one year i.e., 10.07.2024 to 09.07.2025, would have to be considered as without any validity authority and sanction.
13. It is for the said reason, the action of the 2nd respondent-authority in granting extension has been 6 assailed before this Court in Writ Petition No.21418 of 2024, and upon this Court granting interim suspension of such extension, the authorities have caused paper publication inviting bids from the intending participants and thus, the action of 2nd respondent cannot be held as either arbitrary or illegal.
14. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner was granted extension by the 2nd respondent by collecting a sum of Rs.75,000/- and having availed his services up to 31.08.2024, i.e., for a period of 52 days, this Court is of the view that in the event of the petitioner taking part in the tender process and being declared as successful bidder, the respondents-authorities are to be directed to adjust the amount of Rs.75,000/- paid to it after deducting therefrom the amount payable by the petitioner on pro-rata basis for the period of 52 days where he was allowed to lift the Chicken/Mutton/Fish waste and adjust/ give credit of the balance amount against the payment required to be made by the petitioner.
7
15. It is also further made clear that in the event of the petitioner being unsuccessful in the tender process, the respondents-authorities shall refund the amount paid by the petitioner earlier i.e., a sum of Rs.75,000/- after adjusting the amount payable by the petitioner on pro-rata basis for allowing to collect the Chicken/Mutton/Fish waste for 52 days, i.e, upto 31.08.2024, which the petitioner would be required to pay.
16. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 30th August, 2024.
Note: Issue CC by 31.08.2024.
B/o(gra)