K.Praveen Krishna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1674 AP

                                     1




           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

                      WRIT PETITION No.2526 of 2021

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned standing counsel Sri M. Manohar Reddy appearing for

the 3rd respondent

The dispute in this case is about the renewal of the

contractor as a registered contractor with the 3rd respondent

municipality. The petitioner relies upon G.O.Ms.No.633, HM

and UD, dated 10.08.1978 read with G.O.Ms.No.620, MA,

dated 07.10.1967, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner is entitled to be registered as a contractor

and to continue with his registration, in terms of the Andhra

Pradesh Municipalities (Registration of Contractors) Rules,

1978. It is his contention that the 3rdrespondent-Municipality

relies upon G.O.Ms.No.94 Irrigation& CAD Dept., dated

01.07.2003 to negative the request of the petitioner. The

petitioner contends in his pleading that 1978 Rules are

statutory Rules framed under Andhra Pradesh Municipalities

Act, whereas the G.O.Ms.No.94, relied upon by the

Department, is merely an executive instruction. He also relies

upon the judgment of the learned single Judge of the

Combined High Court reported in Y. Balaramaiah v The

Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Rajahmundry1

wherein the learned single Judge held that the rules, on which

2016 (3) ALD 95

petitioner relies upon, will prevail over the G.O.Ms.No.94. As

per him the judgment is final and has not been challenged.

Despite the same, he submits that his request for renewal of

the registration is negatived.

In response to this learned standing counsel Sri

M.Manohar Reddy relying upon the counter and its contents

argues that G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2013, is being adopted

throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh and is also marked

through Municipal Administration Minister. According to the

learned standing counsel the whole idea behind G.O.Ms.No.94

is to increase the participation of various contractors in the

tender process. The said G.O. is a magna carta of e-

procurement /tender procedures as per the learned standing

counsel. He states that the purpose behind G.O.Ms.No.94 is

to encourage more transparent and fair competition. The

conventional manual tender system is being eliminated and a

new technology based e-procurement system is being

encouraged. Learned counsel states that the Government of

Andhra Pradesh directed all the Engineering Departments to

follow e-procurement system.

This Court after hearing both the counsel notices that

despite the pronouncement of the learned single Judge in 2016

till date the legal position has not been reconciled. As rightly

held by the learned single Judge, the A.P. Municipalities

(Registration of Contractors) Rules, 1978 are framed under a

statute. On the other hand, G.O.Ms.No.94 contains mere

executive instructions or directions. Therefore, it is clear that

the Rules, 1978 will prevail over the executive instructions in

G.O.Ms.No.94. While the stand taken by the respondent is

admirable and they want to ensure greater participation, the

fact remains that the petitioner is entitled to renewal of his

registration. Till the rule position is amended and further

statutory rules are framed the petitioner is entitled to seek a

relief on the basis of the settled law on the subject. There is

already an interim direction granted on 29.11.2016 in

W.P.No.51044 of 2016, and the memo is, therefore, still

suspended. In the circumstances, for all the above mentioned

reasons the petitioner is entitled to the relief. The petitioner is,

therefore, entitled to renewal as a contractor in terms of 1978

Rules.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:22.03.2021.

Ssv