M/S Leelavathi Mahila Podupu Sangam v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO Writ Petition No.24044 of 2015 ORDER:

The petitioner is a Sangam, which was entrusted with the work of door delivery of LPG cylinders in Stage-II, Shanthinagar village, Waddepalli Mandal, Mahabubnagar District at the time of appointment of the petitioner on 26.12.2012 for a period of one month. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the Mandal Mahila Samakya (Velugu Office) and also by considering the proposals of the Project Director of D.R.D.A.

The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- in favour of the first respondent. Even though, the initial appointment of the petitioner for a period of one month expired, the services of the petitioner are being utilized thereafter. While so, on the basis of several allegations against the petitioner, the proceedings dated 24.07.2015 were issued terminating its services with immediate effect. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination was passed without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry. He further submits that in view of the allegations mentioned in the impugned order, a stigma is cast on the petitioner making the petitioner ineligible for other contracts.

The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that there were several complaints against the petitioner with regard to supply of LPG cylinders and after prima facie enquiry, the second respondent decided to discontinue the services of the petitioner and entrusted the said work to the fourth respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the initial appointment of the petitioner was only for a period of one month, the petitioner is not having any prima facie right for continuance of service. We cannot apply the principles of service law to the case of the petitioner.

the absence of any enquiry, no stigma can be attached to the conduct of the petitioner making the petitioner ineligible for any benefits/programmes/contracts.

Since the initial contract of the petitioner expired long back, this Court sees no reason to admit the writ petition. However, the first respondent shall refund the deposited amount paid by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

____________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 03.08.2015 Isn