M/S Mahima Infrastructures, v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.39757, 39781, 39805, 39826, 39835, 40280, 40305, 40306, 40312, 40638, 40646, 40648, 43037 OF 2015;

454, 456, 528, 540, 1473, 1526, 1533, 2410 AND C O M M O N O R D E R The grievance of the petitioners in this batch of cases was with regard to the failure of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board to abide by G.O.Ms.No.66, Irrigation & CAD (Reforms) Department, dated 20.04.2015 and its consequent action in insisting upon a technical bid separately.

Interim orders were granted in all the cases directing the authorities to receive and process the tender of the petitioner in each of these cases. This Court however stayed finalization of the tenders. It is represented on behalf of Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, that a decision has been taken by the Managing Director of the Board to proceed in the matter in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 20.04.2015 as the entire process has come to a stand still owing to the interim orders staying the finalization. A copy of the proceedings bearing No.HMWSSB/MD/Tender Procedures/2015-16/51 dated 08.02.2016 issued by the Managing Director of the Board is placed on record, reflecting the decision taken by the Board to proceed with implementation of G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 20.04.2015 in toto and the instructions given to the tender inviting authorities of the Board to adopt G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 20.04.2015 read with G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 01.07.2003 along with its amendments during the tender process.

In the light of the aforestated developments, Sri R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in most of the cases and Miss

Purnasree, learned counsel representing Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners in the other writ petitions, state that the cause in this batch of cases no longer survives for consideration on merits. The writ petitions are accordingly closed.

Interim stay of finalization of tenders shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions in all the cases, if any, shall also stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel, however made a mention after the order was dictated and stated that some of his clients could not submit their bids and prayed that the Board may be directed to receive the same at this stage. Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, learned standing counsel, however contested this prayer and asserted that some of the cases were filed after expiry of the bid due date. If that be so, those who approached this Court belatedly would not be entitled to seek relief at this stage by virtue of the similar interim orders granted in their favour. The Board shall therefore receive the bids, if not already received, of those bidders who approached this Court before expiry of the relevant bid due date and consider their bids also in the tender process. ______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 16th FEBRUARY, 2016 Note: Issue C.C. in two days.

B/o Svv