APHC010541262024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 28275/2024 Between: M/s. La Mclean India Ltd, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PADMAVATHI PADNAVIS 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of 3rd respondent in not allowing the petitioner’s workmen to undertake the work of cleaning and serving, cutting vegetables etc., in the Annadhanam wing of Devasthanam as per the work order in Rc.No.Jl/5751/2022, dt.15.01.2023, issued in pursuance of approval of 2nd respondent in Rc.No.B2/COE- 12026(51)/99/2022, dt.10.01.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and 2 violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to the proceedings issued by 2nd respondent in Rc.No.B2/COE-12026(51)/99/2022, dt.10.01.2023, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to take action against the 4th respondent for preventing the petitioner from operating license rights contrary to the approval orders issued in Rc.No.B2/COE-12026(51)/99/2022, dt.10.01.2023 ….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a petty business concern undertaking contract works. The petitioner having been successful bidder in the auction conducted on 11.11.2022, in pursuance of tender notification issued for awarding contract of supplying man power for clearing, serving, cutting vegetables, etc.. in the Annadhanam wing of 3rd respondent-devasthanam (for short “schedule premises”) and the petitioner was issued with Work Order through proceedings Rc.No.J1/5751/2022, dated 15.01.2023 and the petitioner has been awarded with contract for a period of two years showing commencement from 15.11.2022 to 14.11.2024, though the actual contract commenced from 15.01.2023. The said award of license was approved by the 2nd respondent vide L.Dis.in.Rc.No.B2/COE- 12026(51)/99/2022, dated 10.01.2023, in exercise of powers conferred under Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.866, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 08.08.2003, specifically mentioning that the tender period was from two years from the date of work order. While so, the 2nd respondent issued Memo vide Rc.No.B1/COE-12026(51)/91/2025-1, dated 23.10.2024, directing all the Executive Officers of 7 major temples, which includes the 3rd respondent- devasthanam to continue with the current sanitation security and man power 3 supply agencies and not to call for fresh tenders, if license have expired or about to expire, until the procedure is finalized. Surprisingly, the 3rd respondent acting contrary to the orders issued by 2nd respondent, dated 23.10.2024, has issued tender notification for awarding license rights of the period from November 2024 up to 2026, vide tender notification dated 12.10.2024 and the 3rd respondent proceeded with conducting auction held on 28.10.2024. The petitioner having no other option, participated in the auction, but the 3rd respondent proceeded to accept tender of another bidder, who is not qualified at all, also not having labour license and not even firm license. Hence, the petitioner raised objections, upon which the process has been stalled. However, the 3rd respondent issued Notice dated 15.10.2024 alleging that the petitioner has not been paying EPF and ESI contributions to which the petitioner submitted detailed reply on 08.11.2024 submitting proofs relating to payment of contributions for each worker and the same was also acknowledged by the said workers. But the 3rd respondent has not been allowing the workers being engaged by the petitioner for performance of work. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Mr.G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Ms.Padmavathi Padnavis, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 4 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the petitioner is constrained to implead the incumbent of 3rd respondent-officer as 4th respondent herein in person, as he has been acting with malafide intention to cause damage and loss to the petitioner. He further submits that the action of the 4th respondent in calling for the tenders mentioning the period from 15.11.2024 is contrary to the orders issued by the 2nd respondent as it was specifically directed that the period of contract of petitioner shall be two years from the date of work order and as the work order was issued on 15.01.2023, the license of the petitioner will be in force up to 14.01.2015 and hence, the petitioner shall be allowed to operate license rights till 14.01.2025. He further submits that the petitioner made representation dated 25.11.2024 to the 2nd respondent as well as 3rd respondent placing on record the high handed action of the 4th respondent. But the respondents have not taken any action so far. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 5. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present Writ Petition and prays to dismiss the same. 6. Perused the record. 7. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, as per the proceedings vide L.Dis.in Rc.No.B2/COE-12026(51)/99/2022, 5 dated 10.01.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent, the tender period is for a period of two years from the date of work order. In the instant case, the work order was issued vide RC.No.J1/5751/2022, dated 15.01.2023 issued by the Joint Commissioner and Executive Officer. Further, the petitioner has made a representation to the 2nd respondent dated 07.10.2024 stating that, as per tender terms and conditions, the services of the petitioner will expire on 14.10.2024 and requested to renew services for further one year with the same existing rate of Rs.3.63/- Paisa with same terms and conditions. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent came into agreement dated 12.11.2022 stating that the tender period is for a period of two years i.e., from 15.11.2022 to 14.11.2024. However, there was delay in issuing work order and thereafter, the work order was issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.J1/5751/2022, dated 15.01.2023. 9. Moreover, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as the work order was issued on 15.01.2023, the license of the petitioner will be in force up to 14.01.2025. However, at this juncture, for considering the case of the petitioner, the license period of the petitioner has been expired. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that, the license of the petitioner was expired. Therefore, the petitioner 6 is directed to vacate the schedule premises with immediate effect. However, if the respondents intend to conduct fresh auction for the schedule premises, the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the auction. 10. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 24-01-2025 BMS