Dismissed

M/s.Z.v.Stroy-Gdcl(Jv) v. Govt. of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jul 2022WP/12789/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge bench disposed of the writ appeal and connected writ petition as infructuous due to lack of instructions from the writ petitioner's counsel regarding the current status of the matter, reserving liberty to revive the proceedings if the cause of action persists.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal, I.A. No.1 of 2011, and W.P.No.12789 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous with liberty to revive.

M/s.Z.v.Stroy-Gdcl(Jv) Vs Govt. of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶2

¶3

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

¶4

I.A. No.1 of 2011 (WAMP No.1163 of 2011) IN/AND W.A (SR) No. 102182 of 2011 AND W.P.No.12789 of 2011

¶5

(Proceedings through physical mode)

¶6

I.A. No.1 of 2011 (WAMP No.1163 of 2011) IN/AND W.A (SR) No. 102182 of 2011:

¶7

M/s. Z.V. STROY-GDCL (JV) rep.by its Authorized officer, C.Govinda Krishna S/o. C.K. Reddy, aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, r/o. H.No.6-10-B, Nilagiri Block, Aditya Enclave, Ameerpet, Hyderabad ..Appellant

¶8

Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, J Block, Secretariat building, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. P. Gangarami Reddy Counsel for Respondents No.1, 4&5 : G.P. for Irrigation Counsel for Respondents No.2,3&6 : G.P. for Finance and Planning

¶9

W.P.No.12789 of 2011 :

¶10

¶11

Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, J Block, Secretariat building, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. A.S.C. Bose Counsel for Respondents No.1, 4&5 : G.P. for Irrigation Counsel for Respondents No.2,3&6 : G.P. for Finance and Planning

¶12

¶13

COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶14

Dt: 07.07.2022

¶15

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

¶16

The writ appeal, which is still at the SR stage, would call in question the interim order dated 13.04.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in WPMP No.15555 of 2011 in W.P. No.12789 of 2011. The said WPMP was filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to deduct/recover any amounts towards Labour Cess from the petitioner company in respect of the work allotted namely for “providing cement concrete lining to Satya Sai Ganga Canal with paver in between Km.42.400 and Km.151.887 and construction of tail channel with CM & CD works for escape regular at Km.67.650 construction of O.T sluice at Km.67.750 Km.72.000 Km.87.000 and cross regulator at Km.78.182 of Satya Sai Ganga Canal and construction of balance works of branch canals No.8A, 8B, 9 together with the distributory system creating direct irrigation potential of 53,000 acres including investigation design and estimation vide Agreement No.8-SE/2004-05, Dt:23.03.2005”, unless the same is included in the revised estimate.

¶17

By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge while granting interim direction as prayed for, directed them while making the payments to the writ petitioner/contractor, the principal employer shall ensure that 1% of the contract value should be withheld, but the same may not be transmitted to the Labour Department and the amount demanded by the Labour Department will be deducted from the bills payable to the contractor, but the same will not be made over to them.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner would submit that they have no instructions from the writ petitioner as to the present status of recovery from the individual. They would submit that the matter in issue is covered by the order passed by this Court in batch of

¶19

¶20

writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos.11269 of 2009 and batch, available at page 15 of the writ petition papers.

¶21

Be that as it may, since the writ petitioner’s counsel have no instructions as to the present status of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition as infructuous reserving liberty in favour of the writ petitioner to revive the same, if the cause of action still survives. Consequently, I.A. No.1 of 2011 (WAMP No.1163 of 2011) and the writ appeal are also disposed as infructuous with the same liberty.

¶22

No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶23

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J

¶24

¶25

¶26

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

¶28

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

¶29

I.A. No.1 of 2011 (WAMP No.1163 of 2011) IN/AND W.A (SR) No. 102182 of 2011 AND W.P.No.12789 of 2011 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

¶30

Dt: 07.07.2022

¶31

M/s.Z.v.Stroy-Gdcl(Jv) v. Govt. of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Z.v.Stroy-Gdcl(Jv) v. Govt. of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pedanandipadu Old Students Association Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs P. Lakshumaiah, Kadapa Dist. and Anr.

Kuchibhotla Srivatsa Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kothapalli Abraham, Vs M/s. Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited

The a P Scheduled Tribe Coop Finance Corporation Ltd, Vs R Amuda

Pamu Prabhakar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh