Point of law : Impugned letter passed by respondent No.3 dated 31.12.2021 is clear violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to declare the impugned notices being issued from time to time and lastly vide letter No.10621/Vig/2010 dt 31/12/2021 for remittance of alleged excess amounts claimed as illegal, arbitrary, unjustifiable and unconstitutional, set aside the same as such and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner’s firm in all those tenders being invited/floated by the respondent department and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.…”

2. Heard Sri K. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader Women and Child Welfare Department appearing on behalf of respondents.

3. Brief Facts of the case:

3.1 The petitioner submits that respondent department invited tenders for purchase of basic utensils for the use of Anganwadi Centres (Aluminium and Steel) to prepare and distribute the supplementary nutritious food to the children of age group between 0-3 years and to the lactating mothers living in rural areas. The petitioner participated in the said tenders and became a successful bidder and the respondent awarded the contract infavour of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have entered an agreement dated 13.03.2004 for supply of 59,259 Aluminium utensils at a cost of Rs.3,08,04,007/-(Rupees Three Crores Eight Lakhs Four thousand and seven only) and stainless steel utensils worth Rs. 1,08,97,536/- (Rupees One Crore Eight Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand five hundred and thirty Six only) at the rate of Rs.141 and Rs.160 per Kg within 60 days from the date of agreement. He further submits that the petitioner firm supplied and delivered the contracted goods within the extended time granted and that there were no complaints and the entire transaction of supply of goods to the respondent department was concluded in the year 2004.

3.2 He further submits that after lapse of 15 years respondent No.2 issued letter dated 03.05.2019 basing on the memo dated 10.02.2016 of respondent No.1 directing the petitioner’s firm to remit excess amount of Rs.28,83,279/-. Petitioner’s firm submitted reply to the respondent No.2 on 01.07.2021 specifically denying the allegations of excess claim for the supplies. He further submits that respondent authorities without passing any order on the explanation submitted by the petitioner surprisingly issued impugned notice on 31.12.2021 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.28,83,279/- and the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2 is hopelessly time barred.

4. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner specifically contending that General Administration (Vigilance and Administration) department identified their case in finalization of tenders for supply of aluminium/Stainless Steel Utensils to Hyderabad District and conducted detailed enquiry and submitted appraisal report No.37(1747/V & E/D2/04) dated 22.08.2008.

4.1 Respondent No.3 issued letter vide No.10621/Vig./2010 dated 23.12.2019 directing the petitioner to remit the excess amount of Rs.28,83,279. After receipt of the said letter petitioner submitted explanation on 01.07.2021. Respondent No.3 rightly issued the impugned notice dated 31.12.2021 specifically stating that the Vigilance Department conducted enquiry and issued Appraisal Report No.37 of V & E pointing out that, M/s. Metallica Industries supplied the Aluminium Utensils with recycled scrap procured from other firms at the rate Rs.102 and Rs.105 per Kg which was not selected in DLPC due to inferior quality and also pointed out that the petitioner has claimed excess amount of Rs.28,83,279 towards supply of Aluminium/Stainless Steel Utensils and directed to remit the excess amount claimed towards supply of Utensils.

4.2 In spite of several correspondences made by respondent No.3 the petitioner has not remitted the amount. In view of the same, respondent No.3 has