1. M/s Ahmed Rickshaw & Cycle Parts v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 3rd and 4th Respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law for not consider the representation of the 1st Petitioner on 2OlO3l2O17 and 2410712019 and consequently direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to consider the representation of the 1 st Petitioner on 2410712019 and 2OlO3l2O17 to grant the contract amount to the 1st Petitioner for supplying of the Batteries and Conservancy Articles. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couft may be pteased to direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to consider the representation r>f the 1st Petitioner filed on 2410712019 and 2O10312017. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MULLANGI RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER l HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27551 OF 2019 ORDER: (oRAL) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents No.3 and 4 in not considering the representations of the petitioners dated 20.03.2017 and24.07.2019 for grant of contract amount to petitioner No.l for supply of batteries and conservancy articles, as being i ttegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. It is submitted that pursuant to the tender notification No.l267l H&S/CMO/GHMC/2013 dated 15.06.2013 for supply of conservancy articles, petitioner No.l participated in the said tender and became the successful bidder along with three (3) others and paid EMD (Earnest Money Deposit) amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to respondents No.2 and 3 which was later encashed in 2013. Respondent No.2 issued notice vide Lr. No.l267lH&S/CMO/GHMCl20l3 dated

09.07.2013 to respondent No.l stating that he has closed the bid for supply of conservancy articles and UGD rods' That on behalf of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No.2 supptied the conservancy articles and batterics to respondent No.l. Later, quality test was done on the batteries and they were found to be in good condition- Though the petitioners 2 supplied the batteries, respondent No.l failed to pay the rrmount to the petitioners in that regard. The petitioners approached respondenl No.4 and filed representation dated 20.03.2017 for release of the contract amount in respect ol- the supply of tricycles but tht: same was not released. Respondent No.3 issued notice dated 25.04.2017 to petitioner No. I stating that as per the statement of petitioner No. l, petitioner: No.2 dumped sixty five (65 ) tricycles in the 2nd instalment but rvhereas as per the acknowledgments, the AMOHs lifted only fifty eight (58) tricycles and that there is a shortage of seven (7) tricycles. Again petitioner No.2 submitted representation on behalf of petitioner No. 1 to respondent No.3 on 24.07.2019 and as there was no response from the respondent authorities, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court.

3. Mr. G.Madhusudan Rcdciy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, submitted thai the tender notification dated 05.01.201ri rvas issued for supply of tricyclcs; petitioner No. I participated in the tender and became the successful bidder along with others. The supply order dated

28.11.2016 was issued to the petitioners directing them to supply the tricycles within a period ol' thirty (30) days. It was informed to the petitioners that if there is any delay supply and delivery ofthe 3 tricycles, penalty of Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty only) per day per ong tricycle witl be levied for a maximum period of thirty (30) days and i[ the supplies are not completely made even after sixty (60) days from the date of recelpt of the suppty order, then the security deposit will be forfeited as time is the essence of contract. In response to the supply order dated

28.1l.2016, the petitioners neither supplied tricycles within the time period nor gave any response, as such, final notice vide Lr. No.2l07lAC(H&S/SVMIGLINIC/2016 dated 17.01.2017 was issued to the petitioners, directing them to supply the tricycles keeping the last date o[ supply as 28.01.2017. The petitioners, even after receipt of the final notice, have not supplied the tricycles.

4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioners were inlormed by letter dated 17.03.2017 that the Commissioner, GHMC agreed for extension of time period to complete the supply of tricycles positively by extending the time period till 24.03.2017. The petitioners were further informed that penalty will be imposed for the delay of supply. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 25.04.2017 the petitioners were informed that they have dumped only 58 tricycles and same was acknowledged by the AMOHs; later it was found that there is ,/ .-- 4 shortage of7 tricycles. Further, the letter dated 13 08 2018 was issued to the petitioners inlorming them that as per the invoice bills raised by the agency, the payment was released duly deducting the penalties as per agreement conditions and the petitioners accepted the said payment.

5. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that as of norv, there are no amounts payable by the GHMC authorities Io the petitioners. Thus, there are no merits in this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel lbr the petitioners submitted thal the pelitioners have received the payment for 58 tricycles. However, the amount for 7 tricycles has not been released and the petitioners may be given liberty to submit fresh representation to the respondent authorities for release of payment for 7 tricycles and also for supply of 30 number of batteries i.e. 26 number of batteries to Kavadiguda parking yard and 4 number of batteries to the Khairatabad parking yard which were strpplied jn 2014. Leamed Standing Counsel lor GHMC submitted that supply of batteries is not the subject matter of this writ petition and it is a disputed question of fact. 5

7. Taking note of the innocuous relief sought by the leamed counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to submit fresh representation for release of payment for 7 triCycles and also for supply of 30 number of batteries, and the same shall be disposed of by the respondent authorities by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of lour (4) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed SD/- M. OSMAN ALt BAIG TSTANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad The Additional Commissioner, Health and Sanitation' O/o GHMC' Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad 'l The Additional Commissioner, Transportation' 6th Floor' Buddha Bhavan' Hyderabad.

4. The Zonal Commissioner, Central and South Zone' Khairathabad' 5, One CC to SRI MULLANGI RAMI REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI G MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' SC FORGHMC [OPUC] t r Two CD CoPies 7 BSR PVL HIGH COURT DATED:1010712025 -'t-- a ,.,. t .1 _ ' ,|,:. ' ,l 'i.r \\ i' 0 B :EP 206 \(;i \,'" \i.- ',"''' _ -../- - - ORDER WP.No.27551 of 2019 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS g