IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE honourable SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO: r>F PRADESH AMARAVATI DAY OF MAY FIVE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Between: Viiaya Electricals, Prop: A.Rami Reddy, S/o.Balakasireddy, aged 55 Contractor in APCPDC Ltd, H.N0.10/1064Z District, A.P. years, -17, Markapur, Prakasam ...PETITIONER AND 1- The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, AP Secretariat, 2. The Chairman and Managing Director Distribution Corporation Ltd., 3. The Director, Technical, APCPDCL, Vijayawada, NTR District A P 4. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APCPDCL Ongole Prakasam District, A.P. ’ ^ 5. The Executive Engineer, Civil/Operation Prakasam District, A.P. 6. The Deputy Executive Engineer Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P - Rep by Special Chief Secretary Amaravathi, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh Central Power Vijayawada, NTR District, A.P. f Circle, APCPDCL, Ongole , Civil/Operation Circle, APCPDCL ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more nature of Writ of Mandamus, 27-12-2024Notice, i the High Court may particularly one in the to declare the e-procurement dt. I — 04/2024- law, Tender Notice No.SE/OPN/APCPDCL/ONG 25 issued by the 4"’ Respondent iIS illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the without due process of law and viviolative of Articles principles of natural i dt.27-12-2024 i ^ Constitution of India 16, 19 and 21 justice, of the and aside e-procurement Notice, APCPDCL/ ONG-04/2024 supply of PSCC Poles ti consequently set iP Tender Notice No.SE/OPN/ petitioner to -25 and allow the contract manufacture and period upto 31-3-2026. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci stated in the affidavit filed i pleased circumstances may be -12-2024, 'n support of the petition the High Court procurement Notice dt.27 f^ay be pleased to pending disposal of the stay the e- above Writ Petition. jA NO: ? nn Between; 1- The Chairman and Managing Director, Distribution Corporati 2. The Director Andhra Pradesh Central Power on Ltd , Vijayawada, NTR District A P Prakasam District, A.P. Executive Engineer Prakasam District 5. The Deputy Executive - Ongole, Prakasam District A.P. APCPDCL, Ongole, ' Civil/Operation Circle, APCPDCL, Ongole Circle, APCPDCL. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS A.P. Engineer, Civil/Operation , A.P -VACATE No.2 to 6 AND T Viiaya Electricals, Prop: A.Rami r Vears, Contractor In APCPDC Ud Prakasam District, A.P. Pecldy, S/o.Balakasireddy 1 HNO.10/1064Z-17 . aged 55 Markapur, ••■PETITIONER 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Distribution Corporation Ltd. Rep by Special Central Power Vijayawada, NTR District, A.P. ...RESPONDENT ^ -RESPONDENTS Pew,on under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances s ated ,n the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be P eased to vacate the Interim Order, df: 09.01.2025 in W.P.No.391 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 APHC010001082025 'N the high court (Special OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AIWARAVATI Original Jurisdicti 0, [3331] ion) ^ OF MAY and twenty five present the honourable SRI JUSTICE SUBBA ^^®LPETIT|^ REDDY SATTI J^[OU91Z2025 Between; ^'Jaya Electricals -PETITIONER AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitio ••■RESP0NDENT(S) ner: TAIapati Vivekananda Counsel for the Respondenf(S); TGP FOR ENERGY 2 V VSATISH The Court ^ade the following ORDER; Vivekananda, learned - counsel for the Heard Sri Alapati Sri V.V.Satrsh counsel for the respondents 2 to 6. 'earned standing petitioner and 2. The above writ petition is fned ,• --04/2024-25 No.SE/OPN/APCPDCL/ONG hy the 4'^ Poles , Operation ci private suppliers for "T^Pugning the dated 27.12.2024 Tender notice (Ex. P.1) issued sizes of PSCC '^arkapur) in poles from the respondent for f^anufacturing and supply of various si ('•e. at Ongole procurement of PSCC arbitrary. et 2 Nos Departmental pole Centers circle, Ongole for 3 & years and year, as illegal and 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an agreement vide dated LR.NO.SE.O.OGL.TECH.F.L.S.AGT.NO.82/16-17.d.No.5134/2016 02.12.2016 (Ex.P.4) was entered into by the petitioner and 4*' respondent for manufacture and supply of 8.0 Mts 200 kgs and 9.1 Mts/280 at Department., pole center, Ongole 30,11.2017. The agreement has been extended from time to time. The 4"' respondent extended the Kgs PSCC poles on turnkey basis from 01.12.2016 to contract period upto LR.No.SE.O.OGL. EE.CIVIL. F.DOC.D.NO. 1810/2023, (Ex.P.5). The petitioner has been manufacturing the 31.03.2026 Dated vide 18.03.2024 PSCC poles as per the requirement. 4. Be that it 4th as may, the Lr.No.SE/OGL/EE(t)/DEE/Civil/CO/OGL/F.Doc/D.No.1100/24, 24.12.2024 (Ex.P.3) informed the petitioner that deemed to be cancelled within respondent. by dated the existing agreement is one month from the date of receipt of this one month by consuming raw material. The petitioner immediately made a representation dated 27.12.2024 (Ex.P.2). Thereafter, Tender notification was issued. notice and the petitioner has to stop the work within all the procured the e-procurement 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit any reasons, the agreement was cancelled abruptly, and such adopted by the 4'^ respondent violates the principles of natural justice. that without assigning a course 6. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 6. While not disputing the initial agreement, Ex.P.4 and its extension under Ex.P.5, it contended, inter alia, that after the bifurcation of APCPDCL, constituted, which submitted was a Committee was a report recommending the calling of fresh tenders for the procurement of PSCC poles. Consequently, a one-month notice dated 24.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, a Tender ,Notification was issued, as Ex.P.1. It was further contended that the petitioner has no legal right to continue the work, and that the petitioner’s rights under Article 14or19(1)(g)]ofthe Constitution of India have not been violated. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned standing counsel, reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the writ affidavit and counter-affidavit, respectively. 7. The point for consideration is; Whether the e-procurement notification issued by the 4*'’ respondent vide Ex.P.1, by cancelling the agreement marked as Ex.P.3, is legally sustainable? From the pleadings and oral contentions, there is no dispute regarding the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 4^^ respondent concerning the manufacture and supply of PSCC poles. The agreement has been extended from time to time, and by Ex.P.5, it was extended until 31.03.2026. Thus, the operation of the agreement is subsisting. As seen from Ex.P.3, the 4‘^ respondent issued a one-month notice cancelling the agreement, based on instructions from the corporate Office of APCPDCL, Vijayawada. However, no reasons cancellation of the agreement. 8. 9. 10. were assigned for the It is not the case of the 4*^ respondent that the petitioner failed to supply Poles and the petitioner has been supplying sub-standard poles, or that the petitioner acted contrary to the terms of the agreement. The only reason the instructions of the corporate 11. assigned in Ex.P.3 is as per office/APCPDCLA/ijayawada, one month's notice was issued, cancelling the agreement. The 4*" respondent should have issued a show-cause notice before cancelling the agreement marked as Ex.P.6, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However, no such show-cause notice was issued. 12. 4 13. It is a settled principle of law that before results in to notice notice. Such a 'n Swadeshi Cotton observedas follows: any action is initiated, which serious adverse consequences, such a statutory provision requirement must be person/petitioner i even if the 's entitled issuance of does not read into the envisage the i statutory provision. 14. \ IWins Vs Union of India', the Hon'ble Apex Court 'Where the statute i 's silent about justice, such '-P'y compliance With the the observance statutory silence i natural justice.” principles of natural i of the IS taken to 15. *n Uptron India Apex Court observed Limited Vs Shammi es follows: i Bhan and another^, the Hon'ble 20 The principles of natural ijustice, which have complied with grounds for which overstaying the leave. into the to be read and the offending clause, employee must be informed proposed to be taken must be of the against him for action was 16. in Manohar observed as follows: State of Maharashtra ^ the f me Honble Apex Court 23. Thus, the pri provisions of Section canon principles of natural ijustice have to be the read into Information Act, It is a 20(2) of Right to settled of civil jurisprudence no person be including condemned unheard. jurisprudence that not be service ■ It will compliance with permissible to principles of natural i passing of a lake the viview that condition under Section 20(2). justice is not a precedent to recommendation In ^(1981) 1 see 664 - (1998) 6 see 538 (2012) 13 see 14 5 25. Thus, the principle is clear and settled that right of hearing, even if not provided under a specific statute, the principles of 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.” 17. 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. 18. 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. 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. 20. In State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jai® the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is-the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same, it becomes lifeless. 21. 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. '’f2010)9SCC496 ‘(2008) 15 see 711 6 22. 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.4,839/-for 9.1 Mts PSCC pole. The said rate was reduced now, and he is settled at Rs.3,392/- per Meter. 23. Given the discussion above, and since no reasons, much less valid 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 terms and conditions. In pursuance of Ex.P.1 order was passed on 09.01.2025 to maintain the status as per the e-procurement notice, an interim 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 decision as per the Law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be take a 24. no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any. shall stand closed. sw.pv.no^mar //TRUE COPY// assistant SECTIO To, 1. The Special Chief Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, AP Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.. Vijayawada, NTR District, A.P., 3. The Director, Technical, APCPDCL Vijayawada, NTR District, A.P. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APCPDCL, Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P. 5. The Executive Engineer, Civii/Operation Circle, APCPDCL, Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P. I 6. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Civil/Operation Circle, APCPDCL 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[OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.391 of 2025 S 1 ff SEP 2025 « Co i ^ . Current Section . - ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS