HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.17165 of 2014 Date: 02-07-2014 Between:
K. Nagaiah .. Petitioner AND The Agricultural Market Committee, represented by its Selection Grade Secretary, Hyderabad and 2 others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.17165 of 2014 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Letter No.AMC/H/24/2013- 14, dated 13-06-2014 cancelling the work order given to the petitioner without issuing any prior notice as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to set aside letter dated 13-06- 2014 and to permit the petitioner to carry out his work as per the proceedings dated 16-01-2014 issued by the 2nd respondent and the work order dated 16-01-2014.
2. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the tender notification No.AMC/H/2013-14, dated 04-01-2014 issued by the respondents for performing the works of sweeping, collection, lifting, transportation and disposal of garbage of Gudimalkapur Flower Market Yard, the petitioner submitted his tender after paying an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of tender schedule dated 08-01-2014 and as the petitioner became lowest and successful bidder, he was awarded contract vide proceedings No.AMC/H/2013-14, dated 16-01-2014 by the 2nd respondent and a consequential work order bearing No.AMC/H/2013-14, dated 16- 01-2014 was also issued and an agreement was entered into. Surprisingly, the 1st respondent issued Lr.No.AMC/H/24/2013-14, dated 13-06-2014 cancelling the work order issued his favour, on the ground that the petitioner is not cleaning the Market Yard since from 10 days, which was published in Sakshi News Paper on 01- 06-2014, and the said cancellation order was served on the petitioner on 20-06-2014. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the agreement, the petitioner is entitled for a prior notice before cancellation of the work order or the agreement.
4. The 1st respondent filed counter, while admitting the award of contract in favour of the petitioner, among other things, stated that since the petitioner is not cleaning the market yard for the last 10 days, the work order was cancelled.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is not cleaning the market yard and the same was informed to the petitioner over phone, but he was not responded to the same and that on receiving lot of complaints from the public and having no other alternative, such action was taken against the petitioner.
6. In the instant case, as per the agreement, the petitioner is entitled for a prior notice before termination of the contract and without issuing any such notice, the cancellation proceedings were issued. The counter affidavit of the 1st respondent is silent about issuance of such notice.
7. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned cancellation proceedings can be treated as show cause notice for cancellation of the work order or the agreement and the petitioner shall submit his explanation to the said show cause notice within a period of ten (10) days from today and it is open for the respondents to pass appropriate orders and take appropriation action in accordance with law. However, since the petitioner has not performed the operations since from 10 days as alleged by the respondents, he will not be entitled for any payment for the period which he has not undertaken as per the work order.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 02-07-2014
Note: Issue C.C. in three days.
B.O./Ksn