Skip to content


Shaikh Bale Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 4534 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1971AP302
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantShaikh Bale
RespondentState of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Advocates:S. Krishna, Adv.
Excerpt:
civil - legal right - article 226 of constitution of india - petitioner sought direction restraining respondent from executing contract without calling for tenders - existence of legal right in petitioner necessary for exercise of jurisdiction of court under article 226 - held, petition not maintainable in absence of legal right. - - 3. at the hearing of the petition it was made clear that the petitioner could at best only tender if there is an invitation of tenders for the supply of beef......veterinary, biological and research institute, hyderabad-2) to call for tenders for the supply of beef, heart and liver for the year 1970-71 and also to restrain them from executing a contract for the supply of the said articles, to the 3rd respondent.2. the petitioner is a beef contractor carrying on the business of supply to beef. the state of andhra pradesh through its department of veterinary, biological research, prepares beef extracts and liver extracts. it was usual for respondents 1 and 2 to call for tenders for the supply of the raw material for the said extraction, viz., beef, liver and heart. for the year 1970-71 such tenders were called for not for the supply or raw material, viz., beef, liver and heart but for the supply of extracts. but the petitioner on enquiry found that.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing respondents 1 and 2 (The State of Andh Pradesh R-1 and the Deputy Director of Veterinary, Biological and Research Institute, Hyderabad-2) to call for tenders for the supply of Beef, heart and Liver for the year 1970-71 and also to restrain them from executing a contract for the supply of the said articles, to the 3rd respondent.

2. The petitioner is a Beef contractor carrying on the business of supply to beef. The State of Andhra Pradesh through its department of Veterinary, Biological Research, prepares Beef extracts and liver extracts. It was usual for respondents 1 and 2 to call for tenders for the supply of the raw material for the said extraction, viz., Beef, Liver and Heart. For the year 1970-71 such tenders were called for not for the supply or raw material, viz., Beef, Liver and Heart but for the supply of extracts. But the petitioner on enquiry found that a contract for the supply or raw material was being granted to the 3rd respondent without calling for tenders. According to the petitioner this constitutes a on travention of the requirements of Rule 124 of the Andhra Pradesh Financial Code. He has therefore moved this court for the issue of a writ to the authorities as prayed for. he has also prayed for restraining the authorities from executing a contract in favour of this 3rd respondent.

3. At the hearing of the petition it was made clear that the petitioner could at best only tender if there is an invitation of tenders for the supply of Beef. Liver and Heart. Assuming that the Departments have their own rules for securing such supply and that there was an infraction of the rules, that would be insufficient for the petitioner to found a writ.

4. The very existence of a legal right in the petitioner is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal, : [1952]1SCR28 .

5. It was also held by this Court in Kosaraju Venkata Subbayya v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, : AIR1965AP425 , that it is only a person who has an existing and specific legal right that can maintain a petition for a Writ of certiorari or mandamus or ask for an order or direction under Art, 228 of the Constitution.

6. It is difficult for the petitioner, to maintain this petition for the relief asked for as if he has a legal right and a grievance which has to be remedied by recourse to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

7. If there are tenders and if the petitioner is one of the tenders, his tender may be considered. With the said observation, the petition is dismissed.

8. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //