Karri Sathi Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

¶20

pleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in deducting the 13.615% of the contract profit from the bills of the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principle of natural justice and contrary to the > rules and agreement and further direct the respondents^{toreturntheamounts} deducted from the bills of the petitioners.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3'*^ respondent to return the contract profit^{of13.615/-deductedfrom} the bills of the petitioners forthwith, pending final disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI T. V. V. KOTESWARA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2:GP FOR MUNICIPAL

¶25

ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: M/s. SIREESHA RANI

¶27

VALLABHANENI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶28

APHC010590302018

¶29

B

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 28136 OF 2018

¶31

Between:

¶32

Kattumenu Praveen Krishna, S/o Ramakrishna, aged 34 years, Occ Contractor, R/o Sreenagar, 1®* Street, Mandapeta, East Godavari District

...PETITIONER

AND

f

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, MA and UD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶37

The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tadepally, Guntur District-522501,

¶38

The Mandapeta Municipality, Mandapeta, East Godavari District, rep. by its Commissioner.

¶39

The Municipal Council, Mandapeta, East Godavari District, rep. by its Chairperson

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

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 Writ Order or Direction more particularly one^{inthenatureof} Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in deducting the 13.615% of the contract profit from the bills of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principle of natural justice and contrary to the rules and agreement and further direct the respondents to return the amounts deducted from the bills of the petitioner.

¶42

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶43

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3^'^ respondent not to deduct the 13.615% of the contract profit from the pending work bills of the petitioner, pending final disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2:GP FOR MUNICIPAL

¶46

ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶47

y

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: M/s. SIREESHA^RANI

¶49

VALLABHANENI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶50

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

r iiff

APHC010267372019

0

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

¶55

[3457]

¶56

THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶57

PRESENT

¶58

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶59

WRIT PETITION NOs: 12153/2019 and 28136/2018

¶60

WRIT PETITION NO: 12153/2019

¶61

Between:

¶62

1.KARRI SATHI BABU, S/0 LAXMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40^YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, I.POLAVARAM, LPOLAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶63

2.KATTUMENU RAMAKRISHNA, S/0 VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, SRINAGAR, MANDAPETA, E.G.DISTRICT.

¶64

..PETITIONER(S)

¶65

AND

¶66

1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS

¶67

MA AND UD DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶68

PUBLIC HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF

¶69

2.THE ENGINEERINCHIEF ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLY, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522501,

¶70

3.THE MANDAPETA MUNICIPALITY, MANDAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶71

4.THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MANDAPETA EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS CHAIRPERSON . ...RESPONDENT{S):

¶72

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

2

1?

1.TVVK0TESWARARA0

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶77

I.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities

¶78

2.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶79

WRIT PETITION NO: 28136/2018

¶80

Between:

¶81

1.KATTUMENU PRAVEEN KRISHNA, S/0 RAMAKRISHNA AGED 34 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/0 SREENAGAR 1ST STREET,

¶82

MANDAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶83

...PETITIONER

¶84

AND

¶85

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY MA AND UD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶86

2.THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, PUBLIC HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF

¶87

ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLY, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522501

¶88

3.THE MANDAPETA MUNICIPALITY. MANDAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶89

4.THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MANDAPETA EAST GODAVARI

¶90

DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS CHAIRPERSON

¶91

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶92

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶93

1.P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY

¶94

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶95

I.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities

¶96

2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)

¶97

3.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP)

¶98

4.'

¶99

The Court made the following Common Order:

¶100

The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the^{respondentauthorities} in deducting 13.615% of the contract profit from the^{billsofthepetitioners.} 2. It is submitted that the petitioners executed the works that were entrusted to them, and the bills were also finalized. However, the 3'^'^ respondent has deducted an amount of Rs. 6.5^{lakhsfromtheaccountof} the 1 petitioner and Rs. 1,30,000/- from the account of the^{2"'^petitioner} towards contract profit and other deductions. 3. The learned Standing Counsel was requested by this^{Courttoascertain} the rule position which would enable the respondent^{authoritiestodeduct} 13.615% from the final bills of the petitioners. Upon^{writteninstructions,} it is the 3’’*^ respondent submitted that, vide proceedings dated 27.08.2018, addressed a letter to the Engineer-in-Chief, Public^{Health,Tadepalli,Guntur,} duly informing that the Municipality had adopted the^{procedureofdeductionof} contract profit @13.615% in nomination work bills, similar to other sister municipalities. 4. In that regard, a clarification was sought from^{theEngineer-in-Chiefas} to whether it was appropriate to deduct contract profit^{innominationworks.} It is also submitted that no further correspondence was^{exchangedbetweenthe} Engineer-in-Chief and the 3"^ respondent. 5. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the^{3’’'^respondent} issued written instructions on 15.04.2025, duly informing that the said deduction is in accordance with the norms followed^{byothermunicipalities.}

¶101

-/ if L

¶102

4

¶103

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the^{learnedStanding} Counsel for the respondent Municipality.

¶104

This Court has perused the written instructions and also the letter addressed by the 3'^'^ respondent to the Engineer-in-Chief^{dated27.08.2018.} There is no reference to any rule position that would^{entitletheMunicipalityor} the Municipal Corporation to deduct 13.615% from the contract profit in nomination works. When such is the legal position, there^is no justificationⁱⁿ withholding amounts from the contract bills for the^{completedworksattherate} of 13.615%.

¶105

Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed off,^{andthereshallbea} direction to the respondents to verify the withhold^{amountsandreleasethe} same within a period of six (06) weeks from the date^{ofreceiptofacopyof} this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶106