HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11487 OF 2019 ORDER : (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the work orders to the petitioners for supply of conservancy articles to the GHMC (Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation) as per tender notification No. 1267/H&S/CMO/ GHMC/2013 dated 15.06.2013, despite they being successful bidders, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. It is submitted that pursuant to the tender notification No.1267/ H&S/CMO/GHMC/2013 dated 15.06.2013 for supply of conservancy articles, petitioner No.1 participated in the said tender and became the successful bidder. He paid EMD (Earnest Money Deposit) amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to respondents No.2 and 3 and the same was encashed in 2013. However, the respondent authorities have not released the work orders despite the petitioners fulfilling all the conditions of the tender notification. The petitioners had been requesting the respondent authorities for past five (5) years to release the work orders. That several representations were made by the petitioners to the respondent authorities including representations dated 17.06.2014 and

24.06.2015 for release of work orders. The petitioners were also constrained to approach the State Minorities Commission vide Case No.148 of 2015 wherein the order dated 20.01.2016 was passed directing respondent No.3 to release the work orders for supply of conservancy articles to the petitioner without any delay.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for extraneous reasons, the respondent authorities are not releasing the work orders pursuant to the tender notification dated 15.06.2013 though petitioner No.1 was selected as the successful bidder. The action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the work orders to the petitioners is ex-facie arbitrary and unjust. That instead of releasing the work orders to the petitioners, the respondent authorities are purchasing material from other contractors, which is causing hardship to the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners purchased the conservancy articles amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) and as the respondent authorities are not releasing the work orders, the petitioners are incurring huge loss.

4. It is the case of respondents No.2 and 3 that on the administrative grounds, the tender notification dated 15.06.2013 was cancelled and no supplies were made by the petitioners. Mr. G.Madhusudan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, placed on record letter dated 25.06.2025 along with banker's cheque dated 24.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). It is submitted that though the EMD amount was admittedly paid by the petitioners, the same was not encashed. The respondent authorities requested the petitioners to take back the said amount but they did not come forward. The letter dated 25.06.2025 along with banker's cheque dated 24.06.2013 reveals that the petitioners have submitted the banker's cheque for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad drawn from SBH, Mallepalli Branch, Hyderabad for tender purpose; the tenders have not been finalized for administrative reasons and request was made to the Branch Manager, SBH, Mallepalli Branch, to revalidate the said cheque and transfer the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of the Commissioner, GHMC. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that once the process of revalidation is completed, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will be returned to the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the cancellation of the tender notification dated 15.06.2013 is not supported by any valid document. No material paper/document is enclosed showing the cancellation of the tender notification. Thus, direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to release the wor