The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Attal Plastics
2021 Latest Caselaw 2532 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                           &
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                        WRIT APPEAL No. 309 of 2021
                      (Taken up through video conferencing)

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District and others.                               .... Appellants

Versus

Attal Plastics,
4/145/A, Hasmat Ganj Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad,
Telangana State, rep.by its Proprietor
Prem Nivs Attal, S/o.Ram Nivas Attal,
Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business and another.           .... Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. P. Sudhakara Reddy, Additional Advocate General

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. C.Subodh

Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. Ajay Kohli

ORAL JUDGMENT Dt.22.07.2021 (Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. P. Sudhakara Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. C. Subodh, learned counsel for

respondent No.1/writ petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kohli, learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the

learned single Judge in W.P.No.7878 of 2021 setting aside the tender notification

W.A.No.309 of 2021 HCJ & NJS,J

No.SS-16021/3/2021-CMO SEC-SSA/7/2021-22 dated 15.03.2021 and directing

the respondents to issue fresh tender notification with respect to supply of school

bags to all the students studying Classes - I to X in Government/MPP/ZPP/

Municipal/Residential Schools/Ashram Schools/Aided Schools, Model Schools/

KGBVs of Education and Welfare Departments etc., in the State of Andhra

Pradesh during the academic year 2021-22, without incorporating onerous

conditions.

3. The writ petitioner alleged that he could not participate in the tender process,

because of onerous conditions imposed in the tender notification.

4. In paragraph No.8 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is

pleaded by the writ petitioner that he came to learn that the tender process was

already completed and the 4th respondent had become successful bidder in reverse

tendering process. It is also stated therein that normally the persons, who had not

participated in the tender process, have no right to question the tender process, but

as the writ petitioner had participated in the earlier tender process, it has locus

standi to question the tender notification.

5. On a query, it is submitted by Mr. C. Subodh, learned counsel for the writ

petitioner that the writ petition was filed on 30.03.2021, and though the successful

tenderer was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the writ petition, no notice was issued

to him and the writ petition came to be decided without hearing respondent No.4.

6. In Ramarao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare

Association, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 76, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

that an order issued against a person without impleading him as a party and, thus,

W.A.No.309 of 2021 HCJ & NJS,J

without giving him an opportunity of hearing must be held to be bad in law. In the

aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellants therein, keeping

in view of the fact that by reason of the impugned direction, the orders of

promotion effected in their favour had been directed to be withdrawn, indisputably,

were necessary parties, and that in their absence, therefore, the writ petition could

not have been effectively adjudicated upon.

7. In the instant case, though the 4th respondent is a necessary party and was

impleaded as a party, no notice was issued to him and the impugned order came to

be passed adverse to his interest.

8. At this juncture, Mr. C. Subodh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner

submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded

back to the learned single Judge for disposal, as expeditiously as possible.

9. On due consideration, the order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the learned

single Judge in W.P.No.7878 of 2021 is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed and

the writ petition is remanded back to the learned single Judge for fresh

consideration. The Registry will list the writ petition before the appropriate single

Bench on 05.08.2021 as per roster. It is made clear that no further notice will be

issued to respondent No.4 in the writ petition, as Mr. Ajay Kohli has entered

appearance in this writ appeal. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                                 NINALA JAYASURYA, J
                                                                                 CBS/BLV

                                             W.A.No.309 of 2021
                                                    HCJ & NJS,J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

W.A.No.309 of 2021 HCJ & NJS,J

WRIT APPEAL No.309 of 2021

22nd day of July, 2021 CBS/BLV