IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION ND; 245 OF 202fi AMARAVATI Between: PVSSA & Electricales, Prop: P.Anjalidevi, W/o.Venkatarao Contractor in APCPDC Ltd, R/o Bhagyanagar 1st Lane District-523 001, A.P. aged 51 years. Ongole, Prakasam ...PETITIONER AND 1. The state of AP Rep by Special Chief Secretary Energy Department AP Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Chairman and Managing Director Andhra i Distribution Corporation Ltd., Vijayawada, NTR District Pradesh Central Power . A.P., 3. The Director, Technical, APCPDCL Vijayawada, NTR District A.P. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle Prakasam District, A.P. APCPDCL, Ongole 5. The Executive Engineer, Civil/Operation Prakasam District, A.P. 6. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Civil/Operation Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P: Circle, APCPDCL, Ongole, Circle, APCPDCL, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pieased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to deciare the e-procurement Notice, dt. 1 f 27-12-2024 in Tender Notice No.SE/OPN/ APCPDCL/ ONG-04/2024-25 ^ issued by the 4th Respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law, without of the // due process of law and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 Constitution of India and principles of natural justice, consequently set aside e-procurement Notice, dt.27-12-2024 in Tender Notice No.SE/OPN/ APCPDCL/ ONG-04/2024-25 and allow the petitioner to manufacture supply of PSCC Poles till contract period upto 31-03-2026. and lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i pleased to stay the r of the above Writ Petition. praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be e-procurement Notice dt.27-12-2024, pending disposal lA NO: 2 OF Between: 1. The Chairman and Managing Director Andhra Distribution Corporation Ltd., Vijayawada, NTR 2. The Director, Technical, APCPDCL Vijayawada, NTR District, A.P. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle Prakasam District, A.P. 4. The Executive Engineer, Civil/Operation Prakasam District, A.P. 5. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Civil/Operation Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P. Pradesh Central Power District, A.P., APCPDCL, Ongole Circle, APCPDCL, Ongole, Circle, APCPDCL, ...VACATE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS N0.2 TO 6 AND 1. PVSSA and Electricales, Prop: P.Anjalidevi, W/o.Venkatarao, aged 51 years. Contractor in APCPDC Ltd, R/o Bhagyanagar 1st Lane, Ongole Prakasam District-523 001, A.P. ^ ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT / 2. The Government of AP, Rep by Special Chief Secretary Energy Department, AP Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District / ...RESPONDENTS f / Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may pleased to vacate the Interim Order, dt: 09.01.2025 in W.P.No.245 of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALAPATI VIVEKANANDA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6: SRI V V SATISH (SC FOR APCPDCL) The Court made the following: ORDER ■ / / APHC010001102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 245/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Pvssa And Electricals AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .Alapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR ENERGY 2.VVSATISH The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Alapati Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V.Satish, learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 to 6. The above writ petition is filed impugning the Tender notice No.SE/OPN/APCPDCL/ONG-04/2024-25 dated 27.12.2024 (Ex.P.1) issued by the 4*'^ respondent for manufacturing and supply of various sizes of PSCC Poles at 2 Nos Departmental pole Centers (i.e. at Ongole & Markapur) in Operation circle, Ongole for 3 years and procurement of PSCC poles from the private suppliers for 1 year, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. \ 2 3. R^no,se.o.ogl.tech.f.l.s.agt.no. ■2016 (Ex.P.4) was entered i 'manufacture and Department., 30.11.2017. The respondent LR.No.SE.O.OGL. (Ex.P.7). The requirement. '^ould submit that an agreement vide dated S 81/16-17.d.No.5133/2016 "ito by the petitioner and 4' ^<98 and 9.1 Mts/280 turnkey basis from extended from time period respondent for Kgs PSCC poies ' 01-12.2016 to time. The 4^'" upto 31.03.2026 supply of 8.0 Mts 200 pole center, Ongole on agreement has been extended to \ the contract D.NO.21 3/2024, manufacturing the PSCC EE.CiVlL.F.DOC. petitioner has been Vide 13.03.2024 Dated poles as per the 4. Be that as it or-, may, ^■'2-2024 (Ex.P.3) deemed to be the 4 Lr.No. respondent. by ■Doc/D.No. 1101/24, petitioner that the informed the -ceiied Within one month from the oner has to stop the work within dated existing agreement i date of IS notice and the all the receipt of this °ne month by consuming 25.12.2024 (Ex P ^ was issued ^ ^ procured representation dated Tender notification raw material. The -procurement 5. Learned any reasons, the adopted by the 4'^ counsel for the agreement petitioner would was submit that without abruptly, and principles of natural i assigning a course cancelled respondent violates the ori such justice. 6. A counter-affidavit disputing the initial was filed on behalf of agreement, Ex.P.4, ^ that after the bifurcatio submitted a respondents 2 to 6. While not its extension under Ex.P.7, it was , a Committee contended, inter alia, constituted, which ‘-nners for the procurement of Pscc notice dated 24.12.2024 Notification n ofAPCPDCL was calling of fresh report recommending the poles. Consequently - petitioner. Thereafter, ’ a one-month a Tender petitioner petitioner's rights under not been violated. was issued to the as Ex.P.i. It continue the work, ’’^(1)(g)J of the Constitution was issued was further / has Article 14 contended that the no legal right to and that the or of India have / 3 ) learned standing counsel, in the writ affidavit and Learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as ^ reiterated the contentions as per the averments in counter-affidavit, respectively. 7. The point for consideration is: Whether the e-procurement vide Ex.P.1, by cancelling the agreement marked as sustainable? 8. notification issued by the 4'" respondent Ex.P.3, is legally the pleadings and oral contentions, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner and the 4'^ respondent From the agreement entered into between concerning the manufacture been extended from time 31.03.2026. Thus, the operation of the agreement is subsisting. 9. and supply of PSCC poles. The agreement has extended until to time, and by Ex.P.7, it was one-month notice from Ex.P.3, the 4^^ respondent issued 10. As seen cancelling the agreement, based APCPDCL, Vijayawada. However, no on instructions from the corporate Office of assigned for the reasons were cancellation of the agreement. respondent that the petitioner failed to supply sub-standard poles, or that the It is not the case of the 4 11. Poles and the petitioner has been supplying petitioner acted contrary to the terms Ex.P.3 is as per of the agreement. The only reason the instructions of the corporate issued, cancelling the assigned in office/APCPDCLA/ijayawada, one month's notice was agreement Ex.P.7. The 4'" respondent, being the employer and instrumentality of the State, before cancelling the agreement as . However, no such show-cause 12. should have issued a show-cause notice Ex.P.7, per the principles of Natural Justice notice was issued. f 4 13. (t is a settled principle of law that results in serious adverse to notice notice. Such before / any action is initiated, which person/petitioner is entitled % envisage the issuance of into the statutory provision. consequences, such a even if the statutory provision does not a requirement must be read i 14. (n Swadeshi Cotton Mills observed as follows; Vs Union of lndia\ the Hon’ble Apex Court 'Where the statute i principles of natural justice, imply compliance with the ori IS silent about the observance of the - is taken to such statutory silence i principles of natural justice. 15. In Uptron India Limited Vs Apex Court observed as follows; Shammi Bhan and another^ the Hon’ble 20 The principles of offending clause, employee must be informed proposed to be taken against him for in Manohar observed as follows; natural justice, which have . must be to be read complied with and the of the grounds for which • overstaying the leave. into the action was 16. “23. Thus, the principles of natural justice have the provisions of Section settled to be read into Act. It is a service 20(2) of Right to Information of civil jurisprudence canon including unheard. ... ft will jurisprudence that not be no person be condemned permissible to take the view that pnnciples of natural justice is not a condition passing of a recommendation under Section 20(2) compliance with precedent to 25. Thus, the pri even if not provided principle is clear and settled under a specific statute that right of hearing, the principles of (1981) 1 see 664 ^ (1998) 6 see 538 (2012) 13 see 14 5 natural justice shall so demand, unless by specific law, it is excluded. It is more so when exercise of authority is likely to vest the person with consequences of civil nature.” As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the extension of the contract until 31,03.2026 does not, per se, create an inherent right for the petitioner. However, cancelling the agreement without assigning any reasons, based on instructions from the Corporate Office of APCPDCL, Vijayawada, is not only illegal and arbitrary but also violates the principles of natural justice. 17. It is a settled principle of law that the administrative authority or quasi judicial authority must assign reasons while passing orders. Reasons are the heart and soul of every order passed by an administrative authority or quasi judicial authority. In the absence of reasons, the order passed by an authority becomes vulnerable. 18. In M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others" the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers. 19. I In State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jai® the Hon’ble Afiex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same, it becomes lifeless. 20. In the case at hand, as stated above, the authorities issued Ex.P.3 notice without assigning any reasons. On this ground, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 21. At the hearing, it was brought to the court’s notice that the petitioner, as per the agreement Ex.P.7, is entitled to Rs.4,537/- for 9.1 Mts PSCC pole. The said rate was reduced now, and he is settled at Rs.3,198/- per Meter. 22. "f2010)9SCC 496 '(2008) 15 see 711 6 23. Given the discussion above, and since no reasons, much less valr reasons, have been assigned, the proceedings in Ex.P.3 dated 24.12.2024, cancelling the work, are hereby set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is allowed to continue the manufacture and supply of PSCC poles as per the terms and conditions. In pursuance of Ex.P.1 e-procurement notice, an interim order was passed on 09.01.2025 to maintain the status quo regarding the cancellation of the proceedings dated 24.12.2024, It was further observed that proceedings may continue in pursuance of the tender notice dated 27.12.2024; however, the tenders should not be finalized, and no agreement should be entered into with the successful bidders until further orders. Since this Court has set aside the proceedings in Ex.P.3, the interim order granted on 09.01.2025 shall continue until the respondent authorities take decision as per the Law. a 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-U. SRIDEVI assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, ImarlSfcu^nturDllriS'"^' Secretariat, 2- The Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Central Distribution Corporation Ltd., Vijayawada, MTR District, A.P., 3. The Director, Technical, APCPDCL Vijayawada, NTR District, A.P. Power APCPDCL, Ongole, * Prakalam Distric^'A Circle, APCPDCL, Ongole 6. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Civil/Operation Circle Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P. 7. One CC to Sri Alapati Vivekananda Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri V V Satish, SC for APCPDCL , Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Three CD Copies APCPDCL, TF HIGH COURT DATED;07/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.245 of 2025 fnf ANO/g; SS; o ^ 19SEP20?5 CO ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS