Disposed

K.Babu Rao, v. The Executive Engineer

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Mar 2023WP/7508/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking to set aside a contract termination order and direct payment of dues based on a prior similar judgment, directing the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Superintending Engineer-2nd Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, give an opportunity, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

K.Babu Rao, Vs The Executive Engineer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7508 of 2023

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article

¶5

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.DR.Agt.No.75/2018-19/A1/72021, dated 28.04.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice apart from the conditions of the contract consequently to set aside the proceedings No.DR.Agt.No.75/2018-19/A1/2021, dated 28.04.2022 and direct the respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 10.05.2022 for clousure of

¶7

the contract agreement and to remit the amounts payable under Agreement No.75/2018-19, dated 02.11.2018

¶8

	Dues from Department	Rs.
1	Formation of Shoulders	20,76,228/-
2	Withheld amount	7,76,195/-
`	Balance amount to be paid	28,52,423/-

¶9

Addl. GST., Seinerage Charges, NAC.

¶10

To the petitioner with reasonable interest @18% per annum and pass order or orders. “

¶11

The case of the petitioner is that he is a registered Special

¶12

Class Contractor with the Government of Andhra Pradesh and executed various works and pursuant to the tender notification issued by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner participated in the

¶13

¶14

tender process. Accordingly, the petitioner’s tender was accepted and entered into an agreement on 02.11.2018.

¶15

Further, the case of the petitioner is that, contract period of six (6) months was expired by 01.05.2019. In spite of their repeated requests, on 14.12.2020 part payment was made to the petitioner and thereafter no payments were made to the petitioner, as such the petitioner constrained to make representations dated 13.08.2020, 18.10.2020 and 03.02.2022, requesting the Department to close the work and requested to pay the pending amounts i.e. Rs.20,76,228/- towards formation of shoulders and Rs.7,76,195/- withheld amount.

¶16

Further case is that, the Department has to pay money for the works executed by the petitioner for which he has already addressed letters to the Department to close the work and no bill was paid to the petitioner within the contract period of six (06) months and already the contract period was expired. The petitioner also stated that the Department is at fault in releasing the amount even after expiry of the contract period of six (06) months. As the respondents are not paying the amounts to the work/works which was already executed, the petitioner addressed letters to close the contract.

¶17

Further case is that, as the petitioner received some amount by December 2020, as an intention to resume the balance work

¶18

¶19

and in this context the 3^rd respondent department has extended time for execution upto 20.03.2022 and the same could not be done due to some technical defects in laying the road and accordingly requested the department to close the contract from 13.08.2020 onwards.

¶20

Further case of the petitioner is that, instead of closing the contract by the respondents, respondents addressed letter dated 10.03.2022, informing the petitioner that extension of time is granted unilaterally and directed to execute the work, failing which the contract will be terminated in terms of the condition under Clause 60(a) of the conditions of the Contract. In those circumstances, the petitioner addressed letters requesting the respondents to close the contract and also requested to pay the outstanding amounts.

¶21

Further case is that, without considering the representation made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent-Executive Engineer has passed an order which is impugned in the present writ petition dated 28.04.2022 and the impugned order reads as thus:

¶22

“In view of the above, the work of the “Special repairs to Ghantasala Mch Road from km 3.650 to 7.000 & 8.000 to 10.000 in Krishna District” is determined as per Clause 60(a) of P.S to A.P.D.S.S, which determination shall carry with it the forfeiture of the Security deposit and the total of the

¶23

¶24

amount withheld under Clause 68 together with the value of such work as may have been executed and not paid.”

¶25

Questioning the said proceedings the present writ petition has been filed.

¶26

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader submits that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by subject matter in Writ Petition No.20178 of 2022 which was disposed of by this Court on 14.07.2022 as under:

¶27

“Taking into consideration the submission and material available on record without going into merits of the case, it would not be proper to keep the writ petition pending. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Superintending Engineer-2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 10.05.2022 and pass appropriate orders by giving an opportunity to the petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order..”.

¶28

In view of the above, this writ petition is also disposed of following the identical lines as was given in Writ Petition No.20178 of 2022 dated 14.07.2022 with the following direction:

¶29

¶30

“… the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Superintending Engineer-2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 10.05.2022 and pass appropriate orders by giving an opportunity to the petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order”.

¶31