Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Vaisakhi Sc,St Welfare Association vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 June, 2025
lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA
THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
: p RESENT: ''-`':tk¥4
T¢^LJ+ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
IA No.1 OF2025
lN
WP NO: 14195 OF 2025
Between :
1. Sri Vaisakhi SC, ST Welfare Association, Rep. by its President Pilli
Suvarna Raju S/o. Simhachalam, Aged 34 years. Office . 50-70-3,
Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Sri Pydimamba Man Power Suppliers, Rep by its Propreitor Madepalli
Ajay Sudheer Sai, S/o Bhaskara Rao, aged about 28 years. Officer @
D.No 52-14-18/3/1, Resapuvani Palem, Near St Peters school,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
3. Sri Ganesh Sai Fabrication Works, Rep by its President Kumpati
Venkata Lakshmi Naras'lmha Rao, S/o Sesha Giri Rao, Aged about 45
years, R/o LIG 246, Autonagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Andhra
Pradesh.
...Petitioners
AND
lo The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its principal secretary to
Government, Municipal Ad`ministration and urban Development
Department, Secretariat, VelagaPudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
2. The Greater VisakhaPatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its
commissioner, Tenneti BhaVan, Visakhapatnam city, visakhapatnain
District.
3, The District Medical and Hea-lth Officer, visakhapatnam District at
Visakhapatnam.
ha--_
4. The Chief Medical Officer and Health Officer, The Greater
visakhapatnam Municipal Corporat'lOn, Visakhapatnam C-Itv,
Visakhapatnam District.
5. The City Veterinary Officer, The Greater Visakhapa{nam Municipal
corporation visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District.
H.Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Turaga Sai Surya
counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP for Municipal
Administration Urban
Development
Counsel for the Respondent Mos.2, 4 & 5: Sri AIS.C.Bose,
Standing Counsel
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP for Medical Health &
Family Welfare
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to suspend the operation of Impugned Proceedings in R.C. No.
6042/2OOO/F5/Ph/CVO dated 03-06-2025, issued by the 2nd respondent, and
consequently direct the respondents particularly 2nd respondent to continue
the petitioners to undertake the entrusted work till completion of Work Order
during 2024-2026 in terms of the Work Orders issued by the 2nd respondent,
pending disposal of WP No.14195 of 2025, on the file of the High Court.
The court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to
show cause as to why this application should not be complied with, made the
following (The receipt of this order wi" be deemed to be the receipt Of notice in
the case)
ORDER:
€fHeard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2, 4 and 5 seeks time to get instructions.
The petitioners, after participating in the Tender process, emerged as successful highest bidders. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued~ work orders v,-de Rc.No.6042/2000/F5/PH dated nil.ll.2024 to the petitioners in respect of Zones I, ll and IIl of GVIVIC.
lt is the specific case of the petitiollerS that the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 26.04.2025, directing the petitioners to strictly comply with the tender conditions and also cautioning them that any default would lead to cancellation 'of tenders.
In reply to the same, the petitioners submitted a detailed reply/explanation on 29.05.2025 to the 2nd respondent by stating that they are strictly adhering to the conditions without any retraction.
Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, without considering the reply/explanation dated 29.05.2025 of the petitioners, has stra-lght away issued the impugned orders v,-c'e Rc.No.6042/2000/F5/PH/CVO dated o3.06.2025, cancelling the petitioners' work Orders and alleging violations of the tender conditions.
: I L A plain reading of the above impugned orders dated 03.06.2025, issued by the 2nd respondent, would disclose that there iS nO reference to the reply/explanation dated 29.05.2025 submitted by the petitioners tO the Notice dated 26.04.2025.
pr,-ma fac,-e, non consideration of the explanation before passing the -Impugned orders amounts to gross violat-Ion of principles of natural prayed for, for a period of three weeks."
-/.
Sd/- K.'TA+A` BAG
DEPUTY REGIS-TEAR
//TRUE COPY// SECTION 'OFFiCER
Fol
Tol
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Admi`nistration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.( by Special Messenger)
2. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Tenneti Bhavan, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District.
3. The District Medical and Health Officer, Visakhapatnam District at Visakhapatnam.
4. The Chief Medical Officer and Health Officer, The Greater visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District.
5. The City Veterinary Officer, The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal corporation visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District.
(Addressee mos.2 to 5 by RPAD)
6. One CC to Sri Turaga Sai Surya, Advocate [OPUC]
7. One CC to Sri A,S.C,Bose, Standing Counsel [OPUC]
8. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh. [OUT]
9. Two CCs to GP for Medi6al Health & Family Welfare, High Court Of :
Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] I
10. Onesparecopy CVSS 1 (2023) 6 SCC 1 ..`. `-a HIGH COURT MRK]J DATE D : 12/06/2025 POST AFTER TWO (02) WEEKS.
ORDER
IANo.1 OF2025
IN
WP NO: 14195 OF 2025 _I
'.\ 't.`+.,--.
DIRECTION