IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.758 of 2014 BETWEEN T.G. Suresh.
…PETITIONER AND B. Samuel, Special Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology (FOR-III) Department, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
…RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K.S. MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) The Court made the following order:
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General.
2. This contempt case is filed alleging that the directions of this Court in PIL.No.124 of 2012 and batch dated 05.03.2013 are not complied with particular reference to para 20 of the said order.
3. Learned Advocate General, representing respondent No.1, based upon the counter affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, submits that subsequent to the directions of this Court, notices were issued to successful bidders including the petitioner to participate in the negotiation, which was held by the Negotiation Committee on 29.05.2014 and 12.06.2014 wherein petitioner also participated on 29.05.2014.
All of them quoted rates as in their original tender in a sealed cover duly mentioning the condition that timber has to be converted into Value Added Product (VAP) from within the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh as has been stipulated for three successful bidders vide G.O.Rt.No.81, 82 EFS & T (For.lll) Dept. dated 07.03.2011 and G.O.Rt.No.101 and 102 EFS & T (For.lll) Dept. dated 17.03.2011.
4. It is further stated that all the 8 unsuccessful bidders quoted uniform rates of Rs.5.00 lakhs for “C” grade and Rs.4.50 lakhs for non-grade in Value Added Product (VAP) Form. They also offered rates for log form, which is beyond the scope of negotiation. It is stated that the negotiation committee examined the issue and did not recommend the rates offered by the tenderers in log form in view of the fact that the Government have stipulated a condition to all three successful highest bidders to the effect that they shall convert the Red Sanders into VAP form within the jurisdiction of A.P. before being exported.
5. The aforesaid averments in the counter affidavit, in our view, would show that the petitioner’s offer was considered by the negotiation committed as per the directions of this Court and rejected on merits. Even otherwise, the petitioner was communicated the further order of the Principal Secretary to the Government dated 23.07.2014, copy whereof is appended to the counter affidavit, which states that subsequent to the consideration by the negotiation committee, as above, the Director General of Foreign Trade, Government of India, permitted the State Government of Andhra Pradesh to sell and export red sanders in log form and in that regard, that committee has recommended to conduct sale on electronic platform through e-tender-cum-e-auction.
6. In view of the aforesaid detailed reasons, as set out in the counter affidavit and order dated 23.07.2014, the offer of the petitioner was rejected. We are, therefore, of the opinion that as per the directions of this Court, the petitioner’s offer was duly considered and rejected on merits; hence, no cause of action is made out to entertain the contempt case. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2014, on merits, the validity or correctness thereof cannot be gone into in these proceedings and petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate legal course, if he is so advised.
The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J S. RAVI KUMAR, J October 18, 2014 DSK