M/s.Bharoavi Graohics. havinq its office at 1-1-11911lN7Main Road v. 1. Sri Tejas Nandlal Pawar

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMA]? TKA CONTEMPT CASE No. 1 OF 2()25 ORDER: Petitioner alleges that respondents delit erately and wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated lti

12.2024 rn I.A.No. 2 of 2024 and order dated 27.12.2024 in I A. No. 3 of 2024 in Writ Petition No. 32468 of 2024.

2. It is stated, petitioner is the exrst ng agency providing manpower to the 3.d respondent OrgiL Li sation till

31.03.2025. During the currency of the agreement, though the 56 respondent in the Writ Petition incurred disquiL ihcation on account of pendency of dues towards EPF as on ,he date of tender notification dated O3.O9.2O24 , agency wa i allotted in their favour, through letter dated 14.1I.2024 imptt lned in the Writ Petition.

3. On 20. 1 I.2O24, when the Writ Petitior L was heard, an undertaking was given on behalf of respondert ; that they would continue petitioner, however, on coming to k:: rw that the

3.d respondent entered into an agreement wilI unofhcia-l respondent No.S on 01.12.2024 for the contract f rr financial year 2024-25, during the subsistence of undertakir,l , petitioner lrled I.A. No. 2 of 2O24 wherein by order dated 16. lt _'2024, Lhis Court directed Respondents 2 to 4 to continue petitioner's 2 services pursuant to the Agreement of Contract dated 3O.O9.2O22 by suspending the allotment of service of the Sft respondent dated 01.12.2024. Since the ofhcial respondents have not complied with the said order, petitioner had taken out I.A.No. 3 of 2024 and this Court by order dated 27.12.2024 directed Respondents 2 to 4 to permit petitioner to raise the bills which should be processed for the services being provided by petitioner. In terms of the said order, petitioner raised bills, but the olficial respondents have not processed the same and wilfully disobeyed both the interim orders.

4. The lst respondent District Collector states that as per the 2nd respondent, dues were recovered from the 56 respondent agency by the Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 07.1O.2024 to the tune of Rs.75,67,1O9/- and remitted in favour of Regional PF Commissioner, Hyderabad; further agency belongs to the Sfr respondent was taken into consideration pursuant to the notihcation dated O3.O9.2O24 and orders were issued to the same agency on

14.11.2024. In this regard, it is to be stated, it is the routine process of conducting the District Selection Committee for selection of outsourcing agency by the District Administration in \./^ terms of cO Rt.No. 4459, dated 27.t2.2006, G.O.Rt.No. 4271 dated O 1. 1 1 .2O t 8. Petitioner stared in the Writ petition that , during the subsistence of renewal orders issued by the 2"d respondent on 31.03.2025, fresh orders were issuec by the 2'd respondent selecting the agency of the 5e responde nt, but the very extension period was issued without the apJ'r lval of the District Outsourcing Committee and ignoring t Ie District Collector endorsement on 19.08.2O24 directing to I roduce file with full details. Moreover, petitioner also liled ApJ lication for empanelment of outsourcing agencies uide nc:rce dated O3.O9.2024, therefore, it appears, petitioner is self rr ntradictory in producing the facts before the Court. It is also stated, though this Court p : ssed order 4 .l - dated 16.12.2024, petitioner filed Applicatiorr for new empanelment along with other applicants inclLl(l] rg the Sft respondent through tender process; Applicat ons were scrutinized by the District Selection Committee hez Ced by the District Collector; in the tender process, declr zrtion was obtained from the Applicarts wherein it is clearl" mentioned that the District Collector reserves the right to ac(r' pt I reject any agency / society without assigning any reaso -'r petitioner has filed declaration adhering to the said condit r ns, hence, they cannot question the same now by thi; contempt proceedings. 4

4.2. As regards the interim order in I.A.No. 3 of 2024 is concerned, it is stated, selection process was completed and agency of the 5d respondent was selected after thorough scrutiny by the District Outsourcing Committee; renewal extension issued up to 31.O3.2025 is not approved by the District Collector. Since the extension orders were not approved, further activiLies will not be assigned to the service provider.

5. The 3rd respondent District Coordinator, TGSWREIS also stated in the counter that immediately after receiving orders in the above I.As. on 27.O1.2O15, their olfice forwarded the correspondence letter to the District Collector on

31.01.2025 who, in turn, forwarded note hle on O3.O2.2O25 direcling compliance of the interim orders stating that services of petitioner are to be engaged and continued till expiration of period.

5. 1. It is also stated, the bills raised for the month of December 2024 were paid to the employees through Bouddam Jai Bheem Agency, Suryapet ie. the Sth respondent in the Writ Petition as salary bills are raised mostly by 13tt' of every month, as such prior to receiving intJrim directions, bills were paid. It is also stated, February, 2O25 salaries are paid through petitioner - agency as per the directions of this Court. \ !*+-!ry 5

6. Heard Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, le,r'ned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Plearl ,r for Labour on behalf of respondents. 7 . This Court by way of interim orde: directed to continue petitioner; however, it is the specific cor t :ntion of the respondent authorities in the counter that petitior !er's renewal of contract has not been approved by the District ' )ollector and by the date this Court passed interim order, the ronlract has been allotted to tJle 56 respondent. The main ;omplaint of petitioner is that during the subsistence of rr'r eu'al ordcrs issued by the 2'd respondent dated 31.03.2O25 fresh orders were issued by the District Emplo5rment Offic,: to the 5th respondent agency. It is, no doubt true, petitioner i the existing agency providing manpower to the 3.d respondent )rganisation till 31.03.2025. However, it is to be noted that -espondenr's contention that petitioner's renewal of contract I as not been approved by the District Collector, is indisputably >orne out by the record. Moreover petitioner also filed Ap rlication for empanelment of outsourcing agency issued uide rotice dated O3.O9 .2024 . It is to be noted further that rf -espondent's contcntions turn out to be true in the linal adjurl cation, then anv action of unsettling the assigrred work to the :t responde nt or initiating contempt proceedings against respon3lnts, at rhis .1 \ 6 stage, would be premature and prejudicial. Furthermore, with the nature of factual matrix posed by the respective contentions, indisputably borne out by the record, this Court is of the view ttrat adjudication of the main Writ Pe tition would give an efficacious quiefus to the grievance; therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to close the contempt case, at this stage, however, keeping it open to the respective parties to raise their contentions with relevant supporting material during hnal disposal of the Writ Petition.

9. The Contempt Case is therefore, closed. - Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. SD/. V.KAVITHA EPUTY REGISTRA /ITRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 One CC to SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO, AdVO Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State Hyderbad [OUT] loPUCl of Telangana at

3. Two CD CoPies ADK/PSL Ar HIGH COURT DATED:12111t2025 2/ I I ORDER CC.No.1 ot 2025 0R IHE S I o(J t o t Li 3'ir,a 2[26 z * CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE (c qi"a Yr --. ioOe