Disposed

M/S. B. Ramanaiah Constructions, Vsp. v. Prl. Secy., R and B Dept. and 3 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Mar 2023WP/16939/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the determination of a construction contract award as illegal, the court noted that delayed forest clearance prevented work completion. It directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for work closure and release of withheld funds within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation on work closure and release of withheld funds within four weeks.

M/S. B. Ramanaiah Constructions… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.16939 of 2014 VS,J

¶3

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.16939 of 2014

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of

¶7

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶8

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Lr.No.WF.CR.57EC.1/NABARD/2010-11, dated 28.3.2014, of the 2^nd respondent whereby the contract awarded to the petitioner was determined, as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same …”

¶9

When the matter came up for admission on 20.06.2014,

¶10

this Court granted an interim order as follows:

¶11

“ …the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner may not be encashed by the superintending engineer, Roads & Buildings, Visakhapatnam…”

¶12

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings had produced a copy of the instructions of the Executive Engineer (R&B), vide Lr.No.W.P.No.16939/2014/Supdt/2022-23, dated 20.02.2023, wherein it is stated that in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner has furnished a bank guarantee to a tune of Rs.12.40 Lakhs and at present bank guarantee of the said amount bearing No.16812 BG 000001, dated 30.05.2016 of Karnataka Bank Limited, Goapalapatnam Branch, Visakhapatnam is extended up to 30.05.2023.

¶13

¶14

W.P.No.16939 of 2014 VS,J

¶15

It is further stated that after prolonged correspondence and joint inspections made by the Forest Department Officials Stage-I approval was issued vide G.O.Rt.No.34 EFS&T (Sec-II) Dept. dated 15.03.2018 of the Ministry of Environment and Forest. The road work stretch falling under the reserve forest area was identified and total comes to 4.50 Hectors and the same is to be diverted for formation of the road. For this purpose, the Divisional Forest officer, Visakhapatnam has raised a demand notice for Rs.32.85 Lakhs while according stage-I approval. The Chief Engineer (R&B) Rural Roads, Vijayawada was requested to release funds for Rs.32.85 Lakhs for obtaining forest clearance vide Lr.No.701/Forest clearance/A6/2020, dated 26.09.2020 of the Superintending Engineer (R&B) Visakhapatnam and release of funds is awaited from the Government.

¶16

It is further stated in the instructions that, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 20.04.2018 to the Superintending Engineer (R&B), Visakhapatnam and requested to close the work under clause 58 of P.S. to A.P.D.S.S instead of clause (60)a of P.S. to A.P.D.S.S vide Lr.No.WF CR 57/EC1/NABARD/2010-11, dated 28.03.2014 and pay closing bill and also release the with held amount and EMD paid by him at the time of the agreement.

¶17

According to the instructions produced by the learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings, it is clear that at the time, when the petitioner has entered into the agreement with the respondents on 18.03.2011, admittedly there was no clearance from

¶18

¶19

W.P.No.16939 of 2014 VS,J

¶20

the Forest Department and thereafter, only in the year 2018 the respondents got the forest clearance, which facts clearly shows that because of the action of the respondents in not entrusting the cleared site for executing the work, the petitioner could not complete the works as per the said agreement dated 15.03.2011.

¶21

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made a fresh representation after passing the final order on 05.04.2014, which is still under consideration before the respondents and requested this Court to direct the respondents to consider the said representation.

¶22

In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition by directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 05.04.2014 in accordance with the observations made above and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall

¶24

be no order as to costs.

¶25

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶26

_________________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 07.03.2023.

GSS

W.P.No.16939 of 2014 VS,J

¶31

¶32

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶33

W.P. No.16939 of 2014

¶34

Date: 07.03.2023

¶35

GSS

M/S. B. Ramanaiah Constructions, Vsp. v. Prl. Secy., R and B Dept. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. B. Ramanaiah Constructions, Vsp. v. Prl. Secy., R and B Dept. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk Meeravali Vs the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Coprporation

Busireddy Raja Narayana Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vsn Constructions Vs the State of Ap

Bhagam Constructions Private Limited Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Maruthi Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Maruthi Constructions Vs the State of Ap