Disposed

Sri Mohd. Yahiya Qureshi v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC2 Feb 2012WP/10524/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a previous common order (W.P.No.11269 of 2009), directing respondents to include 1% labour cess in estimates for specified works and prohibiting deduction unless included in estimates.

What did the court decide?

Directions to include 1% labour cess in estimates for qualifying works and prohibition on deduction unless included in estimates.

Sri Mohd. Yahiya Qureshi Vs The Government of A.P. — Telangana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

W.P.No.10524 of 2010

¶3

Date of Order: 02-02-2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mohd. Yahiya Qureshi

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

1. The Govt. Of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department (Works & Projects Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

The Court made the following Order:

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE

¶12

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶13

W.P.No.10524 of 2010

¶14

Oral order:

¶15

The petitioner prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to include 1% towards Labour Cess in all the works entrusted to the petitioner and for all the payments made after 26-06-2007 as per Clause (i) of U.O.No.4763/PFS/F8/98-4, Finance (Works & Projects) Department, dated 28-02-2008.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by a common order passed by this court in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch, dated 22-10-2009.

¶17

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, however, submits that since large number of cases are already pending in this Court and at most, only interim order may be passed and cases may not be disposed of in terms of W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel at length.

¶19

The question which came up for consideration in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch and the present writ petition is absolutely one and the same. Hence, no purpose would be served by passing interim order now and thereafter disposing of the cases in terms of decision rendered in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch.

¶20

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch with the following directions:

¶21

(a) the respondents shall included 1% cess in the estimates for the works which they propose to undertake, if the work continues for or beyond twelve months and involves engagement of 10 workers or more; and

¶22

(b) the respondents shall not deduct any amount towards cess, unless

¶23

the corresponding amount is included in the estimates.

¶24

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP No.13492 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶26

___________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. 02-02-2012 Murthy

Sri Mohd. Yahiya Qureshi v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohd. Yahiya Qureshi v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Satya Sai Constructions Rep by its Proprietor, Vs The Government of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary

K.Jagannatha Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. G. Bharathi Vs The Director General of Civil Aviation

Sindhu Constructions, rep. by its Managing Partner Vs The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

B. Ravindra Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. D.E.C. Infrastructure and Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh., Rep. by its Principal