SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Manneni Srinivasa Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 22282 of 2020
Decided On : 11-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Kambhampati Ramesh Babu.
For the Respondent: GP For Forests.

Point of Law: guidelines and consequent lockdown imposed under the Act, 2005 will prevail over the other enactments and instruments. In that view, the respondents’ contention that the petitioner’s request cannot be considered since he has not entered into formal agreement as he committed breach of auction notification cannot be countenanced.

Headnote:

Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Section 51 - Tender notice - Interim order - Cash or Demand Draft - Petitioner was highest bidder for year and paid amount but could not take yield from garden due to Covid-19 pandemic - Due to which authorities promised to allot garden for said unit in next yielding year without further payment and contrary to same without returning bid amount or without allotting next yielding year to petitioner proceeding for auction without considering the representation of petitioner as illegal arbitrary and consequentially to direct respondents to allot above garden for yielding year without further payment and pass such other orders - It should be noted that this Court in I.A passed an interim order on directing that auction which was scheduled to be held on for cashew nut usufruct for year to Unit-X for an extent of Hc cents situated in Division may go on but respondents shall not finalize same till representation filed by petitioner was disposed of and communicated to him.

Finding of the Court:

Respondents cannot take shelter Condition No.38 as well as Since petitioner has paid entire bid amount and respondents accepted same mere failure to enter into formal agreement that too due to force majeure respondents cannot refuse petitioner’s request - It is true that in Condition No.43 it is mentioned as if corporation will not be responsible for any loss or damages caused to contractor due to any unforeseen calamities such as floods gales fires or failure of crop after issuance of confirmation orders - However in Court considered view Covid-19 pandemic is not of such a nature - It is wide spread disease of pandemic nature due to which movement of public was restricted by lockdown – Hence condition No.43 cannot be resorted to by respondents.

Result: Writ Petition is Allowed

ORDER :

The petitioner prays for mandamus questioning the action of the respondents in issuing tender notice No.1375/2020/CS/714, dated 12.11.2020 for the cashew nut yielding year 2021 including unit – X 1982 of Ramasingavaram for Hc. 128.47, Eluru Division for holding auction on 30.11.2020 for the same unit petitioner was the highest bidder for the year 2020 for Rs.20,30,000/- and paid amount but could not take the yield from the garden due to Covid-19 pandemic. Due to which the authorities promised to allot the garden for the said unit in the next yielding year 2021 without further payment and contrary to the same without returning the bid amount or without allotting the next yielding year to the petitioner proceeding for auction without considering the representation dated 13.10.2020 of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and consequentially to direct the respondents to allot the above garden for the yielding year 2021 without further payment and pass such other orders.

2. Petitioner’s case is thus:

(a) Petitioner is resident of Thumbur Village, Sattupalli Mandal, Khammam District and he participated in the tender for the cashew nut yielding year 2020 for Unit-X 1982, Ramasingavaram for an extent of Hc. 128.47 in the auction held on 06.02.2020 and as per the schedule he paid Rs.5,10,000/- vide MR Nos. 175/13, dated 06.02.2020 towards 1/4th of the sale amount.

(b) The 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 14.04.2020 containing the payment schedule and for entering into an agreement. After making full payment and entering into agreement only the petitioner will be allowed to get usufruct from the cashew nut estates.

(c) Petitioner’s further case is that as per the payment schedule, before executing agreement the 2nd installment of 25% should be paid and the balance of 50% should be paid either in cash or Demand Draft on or before 18.04.2020. However, due to Covid-19 pandemic and consequential lockdown the petitioner could not move out to make the payments as he is a resident of Sattupalli in Khammam District whereas the cashew nut garden is situated at West Godavari District. Hence he contacted the respondent office through phones but could not get any instructions. He sent representation through e-mail on 04.05.2020 explaining his difficulties that he was not able to move out to visit cashew nut garden or engage labour and thus requested to return his 1/4th sale amount. Then he received phone call from respondent office that the 1/4th amount paid by him cannot be returned but if he pays the entire bid amount and if he is unable to get the usufruct due to Covid-19 pandemic, his case will be considered for the next yielding year without further payment or his amount will be returned on the recommendation of the higher authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the balance amount under different installments. He paid Rs.4,00,000/- through Andhra Bank; Rs.3,00,000/- through State Bank of India Branch on 06.05.2020; Rs.1,60,000/- through Andhra Bank St. Therisa College Branch on 06.05.2020 and Rs.40,000/- through google pay to the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, APFDC UPI vide transaction ID 012712257602 from Challagolla Kesava Rao, (State Bank of India) and Rs.2,50,000/- on 07.05.2020 through State Bank of India and Rs.3,01,500/- through State Bank of India on 11.05.2020 including GST. Though the petitioner paid the entire amount as stated supra, however, the respondent authorities did not enter into any agreement with him. The petitioner submitted representation in October, 2020 to the 4th respondent to consider his name for the next yielding year without the necessity of depositing additional amount for Unit-X 1982, Ramasingavaram for an extent of Hc 128.47 for the yielding year 2021 and the same is pending for consideration.

(d) When the matter thus stood, the 3rd respondent issued publication for auction of the usufruct of the cashew nut for the yielding year 2021 including Unit-X 1982, Ramasingavaram to an extent of Hc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top