The petitioners challenged a Memo directing an officer to release 3% retention money as discriminatory and illegal. The Court held that the Memo merely instructed an officer to follow agreement conditions, causing no injustice, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
WRIT PETITION No.34862 of 2012
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the Assistant Government Pleader.
The petitioners challenge Memo No.27880/MIG.I/2011, dated 20.09.2012 as illegal, unjust, discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously referred to different contingencies that have arisen in the working of the agreements referred to in the Memo and tried to persuade this Court that retention of 3% money from each one of current bills from the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary,
For appreciating the contention of the learned counsel, the impugned Memo is extracted hereunder:-
“Memo No.27880/MIG.1/2011 Dated : 20-09-2012
Sub:- Suits – APHC – W.P.No.17760 & 17761 of 2012 filed by Sri M/s.Laxmi Engineering Company, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – for release of 3% retention money from the works bills – Reg.
Ref:- 1. From the M (MI) Note No.70/M(MI)//2011, Dt.26-11-2011. 2. Representation from the Managing Partner, M/s.Sri Laxmi Engineering Company, Hyderabad dated:nil. 3. Govt. Memo.No.27880/MIG.1/2011, dated 24.12.2011. 4. From the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Judgment dated 15-6-2012 in W.P.Nos.17760 & 17761 of 2012. 5. Govt.Memo.No.27880/MIG.1/2011, dt.17-7-2012. 6. From the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Hyderabad Lr.No.DCE(MI)/OT2-T3/JICA/1879/ WPNo.17760/2012, dt.3-8-2012.
<><><>
In the circumstances reported by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Hyderabad in the reference 6th cited, the matter has been examined and he is advised to follow the agreement conditions for release of retention money to the agency.
2. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action accordingly.
3. The Memo issued with the concurrence of Fin.
(Expr.PW) Deptt., vide U.O.No.23469/831/A1/ Expr.PW/12 dated : 1-9-2012.”
One of the objections of the petitioners is that their representation is not considered in the right perspective and the authorities are showing discrimination in following the contractual clause of retaining the advance paid to the petitioners.
I have carefully perused the Memo, dated 20-09-2012. The Government has merely called upon the Chief Engineer to follow the agreement conditions for release of retention money to the agency. From the contents of impugned memo, I fail to appreciate that cause, in fact, has arisen for filing a writ petition on any of the grounds already referred. The Government had merely directed the Chief Engineer to follow the agreement conditions, for which the petitioners cannot and could not have any objection. If adherence is contrary to agreement conditions, the remedies available to the petitioners are not by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226, but the petitioners can certainly bring to the notice of the Chief Engineer and ask him to confine his decision to agreement conditions and if any deviation of agreement conditions is noticed, the petitioners can pursue to available legal remedies.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
S.V.BHATT, J Date:15-03-2016 Prv
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
WRIT PETITION No.34862 of 2012
Dated 15-03-2016
Prv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether retention of 3% money from bills by the authority is illegal and arbitrary.
Whether the impugned Memo constitues a cause for filing a writ petition.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the directive to follow agreement conditions.
Laxmi Engineering Company
State
S.V. Bhatt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
