Disposed

M/s. Siddhardha Constructions (Pvt.) Ltd., v. The Principal Chief Engineer

Telangana HC8 Feb 2013WP/20683/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the deduction of seigniorage charges from bills. It directed the respondent to issue a notice specifying requirements for exemption, allowing the petitioner to submit details on payment proof, before taking a decision.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.4 directed to issue notice within one month specifying requirements for exemption from seigniorage charges; petitioner to furnish information within two weeks thereafter; respondent to d

M/s. Siddhardha Constructions (Pvt.)… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.20683 of 2011 Date: 08.02.2013

¶2

Between: M/s Siddhardha Constructions (Pvt) Ltd Rep. by its Managing Director N.Surender Babu, S/o. Sri.Janardhan Rao Aged 58 years, R/o. Hyderabad.

¶3

... Petitioner

¶4

And

¶5

The Principal Chief Engineer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and four others

¶6

... Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. Shoba N

¶8

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Sri P. Bhaskar

¶9

SC for Railways Counsel for Respondent No.5 : AGP for Mines & Geology

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

This Writ petition is field for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in deducting seigniorage charges from the petitioner’s bills for the work executed under Agreement No.07/West/11/SC, dated 07-03-2011, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties

¶14

and perused the record.

¶15

The petitioner has executed a contract for the supply of ballast to the South Central Railways. Clause 7.a of the Agreement envisages recovery of seigniorage charges from the bills of the contractor. However, an exception is made to such recovery, if the contractor produces such documentary evidence as applicable in respective areas of State Governments. In respect of Andhra Pradesh, the contractor shall produce the transit passes subject to the authentication and verification by the concerned Mining and Geology Department.

¶16

The plea of the petitioner is that the transit passes are issued only to the registered dealers and the petitioner, not being a registered dealer, can only produce transit form. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that despite production of transit form in form.L, the respondents have not been accepting the same.

¶17

On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.4 has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner has to supply a quantity of three lakh cubic metres of ballast as per the tender conditions; that it has furnished form-L (Permit of Despatch of Minor Minerals) for a quantity of 66,476 Cubic meters and that the form pertains only to 24,600 cubic meters transported after entering into the contract, dated 09.10.2010. It is further stated that the petitioner is yet to submit the detailed waybills for the said quantity and that after receipt of the same, they will be sent to the Mines and Mineral Department for verification of their genuineness.

¶18

Mrs. N. Shoba, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, for the first time, the

¶19

respondents have come out with the abovenoted stand in the counter-affidavit and that if a detailed notice is issued by respondent No.4, the petitioner will submit its reply along with the material showing proof of payment of seigniorage charges as envisaged under clause 7.a of the agreement.

¶20

After hearing Sri P.Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel for Railways, I am of the opinion that interests of justice will be served, if a detailed notice is issued to the petitioner by respondent No.4 whereunder it shall indicate the requirements to be satisfied by the petitioner for exempting it from recovery of the seigniorage charges from the bills payable to it. Such notice shall be issued within one month from the date of this order. Within two weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall furnish the information required by respondent No.4. Within one month from the date of receipt of the reply from the petitioner, respondent No.4 shall take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶21

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶22

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 25-07-2011, is vacated and W.V.M.P.No.3302 of 2011 in/and W.P.M.P.No.25120 of 2011 are disposed of.

¶23

Dt: 08-02-2013 SKA/LUR

¶24

_______________________

¶25

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

M/s. Siddhardha Constructions (Pvt.) Ltd., v. The Principal Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Siddhardha Constructions (Pvt.) Ltd., v. The Principal Chief Engineer

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

Mohd. Khaleel-ur-Rahman Vs The Public Information Officer

Mirza Bahbood Ali Baig Vs The District Collector

Veginaty Osura Reddy, S/o. Guruva Reddy Vs The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and

Syndicate Farmers Service Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs The Syndicate Bank

K. Balaji, Vs The District Collector

D.M.Abu Mohammed Vs Government of India., rep.by its secretary