(1.) Kakinada Municipal Contractors Sankshema Sangham, represented by its President, Dhulipudi Mohana Rao, who is a contractor, filed this writ petition in a representative capacity for safeguarding and protecting the interests of the contractors of Municipal Council of Kakinada, which is having 108 members, though did not give their particulars, it is stated that all of them have registered as contractors with the Municipal Council of Kakinada, aggrieved by the resolution passed by the Municipal Council to execute the drainage work through department, the present writ petition was filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in deciding and directing that the construction of the drainage work from Recharlapeta Railway Gate to Salt Creek, Railway Gate on the Railway property along the Railway line in Kakinada Municipality to be carried out departmentally and the respondents 2 and 3 following the said direction and adopting the Resolution No. 410 dated 25-10-2000 and their action in carrying out the aforesaid work departmentally, as illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction and to consequentially direct the respondents to invite tenders for the aforesaid work and entrust the work to the eligible contractors after due selection of the members of the petitioner's Association and to pass such other orders which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner herein is that the second and the third respondents are not acting as per the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder and various bye-laws and Government Orders issued from time to time. The members the petitioner-Association have registered their names as contractors with the second respondent-Municipal Council to execute the works depending upon the estimated value of the works as Class I to Class IV after payment of necessary fee prescribed by the Government. The petitioners Contractors Sangham is registered with the second respondent and after election of the Municipal Council, new body assumed charge and with a view to deprive the petitioners from executing contracts, adopted a policy decision to execute the municipal works through Department, which action of the second respondent is detrimental to the interests of the petitioners-Sangham.
(3.) The petitioners alleged that in pursuance of the above decision of the Municipal Council to execute the Municipal works departmentally, some important works viz., maintenance of Municipal Travellers Bungalow and maintenance of Municipal Office were undertaken through departmentally eliminating the contractors. Similarly, the works of construction of drainage is also decided to be executed departmentally. In this connection, it is submitted that the Municipal Council has decided to construct storm water drain on 17-5-1999 for the purpose of protecting the health of the residents and the proposed drain was to be constructed from Railway gate at Sambamurthy Nagar to Recherlapeta Railway Gate and also upto Sarvaraya Textiles and Salt Creek, that the original cost was estimated at Rs. 70.00 lakhs and the estimate was later increased to Rs. 107.48 lakhs. Accordingly, a meeting was held on 25-10-2000 under the Chairmanship of the 3rd respondent. It is further submitted that the first respondent District Collector, herein has conducted meeting with all officers, some of the Councilors and contractors who supplied the material for construction of the drain which includes the quarry contractors and sand suppliers, etc. In that meeting the first respondent has directed that the works should be divided into three parts for the purpose of convenience and should be executed only through Department, and the matter was finally discussed on that day and the second respondent-Municipality has adopted Resolution No. 410 in the meeting held on 25-10-2000 accepting the proposals made by the first respondent and directed execution of the work through the Department.