Disposed

M/s. Back Bone Project Ltd., A/9 v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Aug 2023WP/15008/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a declaration that an order imposing penalties on seigniorage charges was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner relied on a prior judgment and sought direction to follow contract procedures for recovery, denying the penalty.

What did the court decide?

No penalty shall be levied if the petitioner proves seigniorage charges were deducted from bills as per G.O.Ms.No.84.

M/s. Back Bone Project Ltd., A/9 Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

A •«>)
bl
.^1
o

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15008 OF 2010

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Back Bone Project Ltd., A/9, Kumud Apartment, Near AMCO Bank, Office CG 2°!?’ ® Navarangpura. Ahmedabad. rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder N. Chandra Obula Reddy.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to, Government Irrigation & CAD (IW) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

1. Superintending Engineer. HNSS, Circle No. II, Ananthapur Ananthapur L/ISulCl.

¶13

Executive Engineer. AVR HNSS Division - 5. Guntakal Ananthapur District. ...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith; the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders issued by the respondent's impugned order No. 21584/SEr.VII ( V & E-2 ) /2009-1. dated 25.09.2009. as illegal, arbitrary violative of Art. 14. 19 (1)(g) and 300'a of constitution of India, consequently xJirect the respondents to follow the procedure of recovery laid down in the agreement clause 104 of General conditions of contract to recover seigniorage charges for the sand consumed by the petitioner in the contract work under agreement No. SE 5 EPC/2004-2005. dated 25.02.2005.

¶15

LA. NO: 1 OF 2010fWPiVIP. NO: 18908 OF 2010)

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in * the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of recovery of penatly on seigniorage charges for sand consumed in the contract work under agreement No. SE 5 EPC/2004-2005, dated 25.02.2005 by suspending the operation of the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Memo No. 21584/SEr.VII( V& E-2) / 2009-1 dated 25.09.2009 pending disposal of the the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMMON AREA DEVELOPMENT

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

■■ If.

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No. 15008 OF 2010

¶23

QgiDER:-

¶24

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶25

of India, seeking the following relief:

¶26

... to issue an order or direction more particularly one-in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders issued by the respondent’s impugned order No.21584/Ser. Vn(V3sE-2)/2009-1, dated 25.09.2009, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Art. 14, 19(10(g) and 300-A of constitutionpf India, consequently direct the respondents to follow the procedure of recovery laid down in the agreement clause 104 of General conditions of contract, to recover seigniorage charges for the sand consumed by the petitioner in the contract work under agreement No.SE5EPC/2004-2005, dated 25.02.2005 and pass such other order or orders...'' !

¶27

2. When the matter is called, it is represented by learned counsel for petitioner that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by i the orders of this Court in W.P.No.21228 of 2011, dated 09.07.2021 and copy of the same is also placed on record. The same is not disputed by ' i learned counsel for the Respondents. • ■ 3. Following the above said judgment and for the reasons recorded therein, the Writ Petition is disposed of, thus:

¶28

(a) In the event petitioner filed proof to the effect that seigniorage charges were deducted from their bills by the Departments concerned, under whom they have executed the contract works,, no penalty shall

¶29

¶30

¶31

be levied as per G.O.Ms.No.84, Industries 85 Commerce (MI) Department, dated 10.04.2007 lest the respondents shall be entitled to- recover seigniorage charges along with one time penalty as per the

¶32

aforesaid G.O.

¶33

I ' ' 4. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶34

<br>

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

The Principal Secretary to, Government, Irrigation & CAD (IW) Department State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶39