T.Siddayya, v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. 31317 OF 2011 Between:

T. Siddayya .. Petitioner and The District Collector, Chittoor and others .. Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 11.08.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 31317 of 2011 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the 4th respondent invited applications from the intending contractors for repair of supply channels of a tank situated in Chukkavaripalli Village vide tender No.12/2010-11 dated 11.03.2010. It is stated that the 4th respondent granted the contract in favour of Sri Vivekananda (SC, ST, LCCS) Labour Society, Jinkalamitta, Pakala Mandal. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the work has to be completed within six months. It is also stated that though the technical bid was open on 26.04.2010, no agreement was executed till 1st week of August, 2010, and as such, the 4th respondent violated the conditions of the tender.

The 4th respondent is said to have permitted the contractor to demolish the existing channel and remove the valuable stones worth about several lakhs of rupees, thereby the supply channels became un-useful and caused damage to the ayacutdars of the tank. As the conditions of the tender are violated, the President of the Water Users Association is said to have made a representation dated 16.08.

tender. Thereafter i.e. on 10.10.2011, the petitioner is said to have made a representation, as a Member of the Water Users Association, to the 1st respondent seeking enquiry into the said allegations, who in turn, forwarded the said representation to the 2nd respondent directing him to investigate the matter and take appropriate action. The petitioner is said to have made another representation dated 17.10.2011 to the 1st respondent and also to the 2nd respondent, who forwarded the said representation to the 3rd respondent for necessary action. As there was no response, the petitioner is said to have made another representation dated 17.11.2011 to the 1st respondent. As no action is initiated till date, the present writ petition is filed.

Having regard to the circumstances stated above and without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and dispose of the representations dated 10.10.2011, 17.10.2011 and 17.11.2011, if they are made by the petitioner and still pending consideration, in accordance with law, at the earliest. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in the writ petition shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 11th August, 2015 cbs HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No. 31317 of 2011 11th August, 2015 cbs