Allowed

M/s Raghava -Bvsr(Jv) v. The Principal Secretary

Telangana HC17 Sept 2018WP/23674/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the recovery of 0.25% amount from gross bills under a specific Government Order as arbitrary. The Court, noting a common judgment quashing the same Government Order, allowed the writ petition and directed the refund of amounts without hearing further arguments.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the writ petition in terms of the common judgment dated 28.06.2011 and directed the 4th respondent to refund the amounts recovered.

M/s Raghava -Bvsr(Jv) Vs The Principal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.23674 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 4^th respondent in recovering an amount equivalent to 0.25% from the gross bills of the petitioner in Agreement No.7SE(T)/2008-09 dated 13.06.2008 in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.98 (I & CAD) Department dated 05.07.2000 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by the petitioner for executing the work relating to the rehabilitation and modernisation of 21^st Main Branch Canal from KM 0.000 to KM 52.300 of Nagarjuna Sagar Lal Bahadur Canal in Khammam District (package No.LC-KMM-6) and set aside the same and consequently direct the 4^th respondent to refund the amounts thus far recovered.

¶5

When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner while producing the common judgment dated 28.06.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.279 of 2009 and batch, would submit that in the said common judgment, the Division Bench while dismissing the writ appeals upheld the order of the Single Judge whereby and whereunder G.O.Ms.Nos.61 TR & B Department dated 11.04.2000, G.O.Ms.No.98 (I&CAD) dated 05.07.2000 and G.O.Ms.No. 159 TR & B department dated 11.04.2000 were quashed. Learned counsel would submit that since in the instant case also, the petitioner is challenging the

¶6

¶7

validity of G.O.Ms.No.98 (I & CAD) dated 05.07.2000, the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said common judgment.

¶8

1. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development, reported no objection.

¶9

1. In the light of above submission, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the common judgment dated 28.06.2011 in Writ Appeal Nos.279 of 2009 and batch. No costs.

¶10

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶11

closed.

¶12

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 17.09.2018 scs

M/s Raghava -Bvsr(Jv) v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Raghava -Bvsr(Jv) v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Harichander (died) per Lr 2 Vs The Govt of A.P

G.Vijaya Raghavan Vs Y.Venkata Sesha Reddy and State Rep.Pp.Hyd.

Chidrula Satyanarayana, Adilabad Dist Vs the Govt.of a.P,Hyd and 3 Others

Siddavaram Madhur Sudan Rao S/o. S.P.Penchalaiah Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep. by its

Javvaji Bharathi Vs The Joint Secretary

Edavalli Ammakka Vs Govt. of India, Rep. by Ministry of Home Affairs