Back
2023 Supreme(Telangana) 548
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, T.VINOD KUMAR, JJ.
Gonewar Chandu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition (PIL).No.1 of 2023
Decided on : 24-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. E.Ramesh Chandra Goud
For the Respondent: Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, Mr. Ch.Jayakrishna, Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy, Mr. M.Govind Reddy, Mr. M.P.K.Aditya
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for transparency in government contracts, the need to justify deviation from the tender route, and the application of the doctrine of delay and laches in public interest litigations.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - Award of Contract for Construction of Flats - G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 15.10.2015, G.O.Rt.No.3, dated 06.01.2016, G.O.Rt.No.212, MA & UD Department, dated 06.04.2017, Indian Medicines Pharmaceuticals Corporation Limited v. Kerala Ayurvedic Cooperative Society Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 5, Vallianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India, 2009 7 SCC 561, Nagar Nigam v. Al Farheem Meat Exporters (P) Ltd., 2006 13 SCC 382 - The court discussed the legal principles related to government contracts, transparency, and the requirement of inviting tenders or conducting public auctions. It emphasized that government contracts must be awarded by a transparent process and deviation from the tender route must be justified and non-discriminatory. The court also highlighted the need to maintain transparency in the grant of public contracts and the application of the doctrine of delay and laches in public interest litigations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation challenging the award of a construction contract for 2412 2BHK houses without inviting tenders, alleging arbitrariness and excessive payment to the contractor. The court issued an interim order to withhold payment to the contractor and subsequently dismissed the writ petition due to delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the award of the contract without inviting tenders was not arbitrary and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It also held that the petitioner's delay in approaching the court was fatal to the proceeding and dismissed the writ petition. However, the court directed the respondents to ensure payment to the contractor as per the terms and conditions of the contract.
Issues: The issues involved the award of a construction contract without inviting tenders, alleged arbitrariness, excessive payment to the contractor, and the petitioner's delay in approaching the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for transparency in government contracts, the requirement to justify deviation from the tender route, and the application of the doctrine of delay and laches in public interest litigations.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed due to the lack of merit and the petitioner's delay in approaching the court. The court directed the respondents to ensure payment to the contractor as per the terms and conditions of the contract.
ORDER :
ALOK ARADHE, J.
This public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner, who claims himself to be a public spirited person and is interested in carrying out social service.
2. The petitioner has assailed the award of contract for construction of flats to homeless persons by respondent No.2 – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) to respondent No.3 – M/s. DEC Infrastructure Projects India Pvt. Ltd.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the Government of Telangana was committed to providing two bedroom houses to all the houseless poor families in the State through 2 Bed Room Housing Programme in a phased manner. Therefore, by G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 15.10.2015, guidelines were issued for implementation of 2BHK houses across the State to all the families at the cost of Rs.1.5 lakh per each flat. Thereafter, by G.O.Rt.No.3, dated 06.01.2016, the cost of flat was increased from Rs.5.30 lakhs to Rs.7.00 lakhs.
4. By G.O.Rt.No.212, MA & UD Department, dated 06.04.2017, sanction was granted for construction of 1162 2BHK houses at Gattupally on Survey No.13/2 and 1296 2BHK houses at Munugnoor on Survey No.83. Thereafter, tenders were invited for construction of 1116 2BHK houses at Gattupally on land bearing Survey No.13/2 and the work was entrusted to the lowest bidder namely respondent No.5 – M/s. Arrow Constructions Limited. Similarly, on 08.11.2017 the construction of 1296 2BHK houses at Munugnoor on Survey No.83, Abdullapurmet, was entrusted to the lowest bidder namely respondent No.4 – M/s. Rizzu Constructions.
5. Respondent No.4 – M/s. Rizzu Constructions and respondent No.5 – M/s. Arrow Constructions Limited submitted a communication on 23.04.2018 for willingness of execution of work at Mansanpally on Survey No.140/2.
Thereupon, agreement was executed on 17.01.2019 by which the project was directed to be completed within 12 months i.e., up to 16.01.2020. However, respondents No.4 and 5 requested the officials vide communications dated 23.12.2019 and 04.01.2020 to close the contracts.
6. Thereafter, the Government of Telangana by order dated 25.11.2020 directed respondent No.3, namely M/s. DEC Infrastructure Projects India Pvt. Ltd., to finish the balance work at Mansanpally Phase-I and Phase-II for construction of 2412 2BHK houses.
7. It is pertinent to note that a writ petition by one T.Venkat declaring the action of the authorities to cancel the work entrusted to respondent No.3, namely W.P.No.21807 of 2020, was dismissed by an order dated 04.03.2021. The respondent No.3 completed the work allotted to it in the month of October, 2022 and was handed over the completion certificate dated 11.10.2022.
8. After completion of the work, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 01.11.2022, in which inter alia it is prayed that the action of GHMC in awarding the construction work worth Rs.180 crores without inviting any tenders for construction of 2412 2BHK houses in Mansanpally Phases I and II without calling any tender is arbitrary. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the excess amount is being paid to the respondent No.3 and bills worth Rs.68 crores be held up, as they are above 38% of the contract amount.
9. The Bench of this Court while entertaining the writ petition by an interim order dated 10.01.2023 directed that no payment shall be made to respondents No.3 to 5.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of GHMC in awarding the contract on 25.11.2020 to respondent No.3 for construction of 2412 2BHK houses without issuing any tender and in violation of terms and conditions of grant of Rs.68 crores has been agreed to be paid to respondent No.3. It is, therefore, submitted that appropriate directions be passed to dismantle two buildings where 216 families are residing.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that in the facts of the case, negotiations were considered to be a preferred method for award of contract as it can fetch best price. Therefore, t
