VASU P Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Tender notice was issued on 26-9-1997. Tenders were called for supply of labour in the Telecom Office, Exchanges, etc., for the purpose of cleaning, sweeping, house-keeping and security, etc. The tenders which were received and the rates quoted by them are given below :- (1) M/s. Kamaraj Constructions, Vijayawada Rs. 41/- (2) Sri N.Bala Raju, Vijayawada Rs. 47/- (3) Sri P.Vasu, Benz Circle, Vijayawada Rs. 52/- (4) M/s. G.Seetaiah & Company, Khammam Rs. 56/- (5) Sri G.Laxmi Prasad, Vijayawada Rs. 61.29 Ps (6) Sri P.Ram Mohana Rao, Gollapudi, Vijayawada Rs. 64/- (7) M/s. Rajeswwara Rao & Party, Vijayawada Rs. 69.75 ps. The petitioner quoted Rs.52/- as wages per a labour which was third lowest amongst the contenders. The petitioner submits that M/s. Kamaraj Constructions and Sri N.Bala Raju had quoted the wages of Rs.41/- and 47/- respectively which were lesser than the minimum wages fixed by the Government of India. They could not be allowed to pay to the labour engaged by them a wage which was lesser than the minimum wage prescribed, therefore they were not at all eligible to be considered for giving the contract. He further submits that he was lowest of the remaining five as he had quoted Rs.52/- and others had quoted rates higher than Rs.52/-. He submits that, respondents 1 to 3 bent upon giving the contract to respondent No.4 whose rates were higher than the rates given by the petitioner. Therefore, he sought a direction from this Court that the contract shall be given to him and not to respondent No.4.

(2.) Notice was issued and interim directions were given. After hearing the respondents the interim directions were made absolute. In the meantime the respondents have filed their counters and I have heard the parties at length and the matter is being disposed of finally.

(3.) The facts narrated in the petition have not been denied, they are rather admitted. But, it has been stated that the contract has already been allotted to respondent No.4. Since the respondent No.4 is already before the Court and he has filed a counter and he has been heard, therefore this Court will go into the question of allotment of contract to respondent No.4 as well.