The High Court dismissed the State of Andhra Pradesh's writ appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that quashed a 1998 Government Order. The lower court had held the order lacked statutory authority for deducting 0.25% from bills for a construction institute.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 286 OF 2008
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 19-07-2005 made in WP No. 23906/2000 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
AND
....RESPONDENTM/RIT PETITIONER
Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI K. SITA RAM
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
/,/
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESATISH CHANDRAS}I,IRMA AND THI HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEN. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.286 of 2OO8
JUDGMENT: {Pe the Hon'ble the ChiefJusticeSatish ChandraSharma)
The pres ent writ appeal has beenfiIed by the State Government.reing aggrieved by acommon order dated 19.O7.2005 p,tssed in W.P.No.23806 of2O0O and batch.
The fact, r of the case revea-l that thewrit petitioners, who are r:gistered contractors withtheState Government and who were carrying oncotrstruction activities on i Lccount of various agreementsexecuttedby the State Gc vernment, came up before thisCourt by fiiing writ pet tions challenging the legaiity andva-lidity of G.O.Ms.No.92, Transport, Roads and Buildings(B.I) Department,, lated 19.05. 1998.
The afo:esaid Office Memorandum directedthe Engineer-in-( hief (R&B) (A&E) to issuenecessary instructions o a1l concerned to ensure that 0.25%of gross arnour: I of bills payable to the contractors is collected ald is remitted to the Institute of Construction Technologr f India at Hyderabad for meeting the expenditure rnd running the Institute. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties at length, has
quashed the a-foresaid Government Order, as the State Government has failed to place the source of power which empowers the State Government to issue such a Government Order. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge 1S reproduced AS under:-
"Evidently, G.O.Ms.No.92 Transport, Road and Buildings (B.I) Department dated 19.05.1998 is issued by the Government permitting the Executive Engineers to conclude the supplementai agreements with the contractors for works under execution and to be entrusted in future basing on the request of Builders Association of India to deduct O.25o/o of the gross amount of bi1ls and to remit the same to the Academy. The Engineer-in-Chief, in unequivocal words admitted that neither the deduction ol O.25o/o from the gross bi1ls nor incorporation of such a clause in the agreement, is traceable to any provision of law and such a deduction cannot be made part of the contract. In such circumstances, when the Government has no power or authority, the impugned G.O. cannot sustain. The contention of the learned counsel for the Academy i.e., the impleaded respondent that having agreed for such deduction, are now estopped from contending that such a deduction is not legal, cannot be countenanced for more than one reason. Firstly, as observed earlier such a deduction is not traceable to any law for the time being in force and secondly perhaps the members of the Academy might have agreed for such a resolution to avoid confrontation with the Association. Therefore, this by itself does not take away the rights of the petitioners to challenge the impugned order, more particularly when the said G.O., is issued without any statutory authority.
\
\l-+
J
Conseq rently, the impugned is liable to be set aside and is ;.ccordingly set aside and the writ petitions are allowed This order does not, however, preclude the Nationa Academy of Construction, Hyderabad, for collectir g the contributions made voluntarily by the Membet s, as it has to meet expenses for the dav to day activitie ; and management.
TI e writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs in any of the writ petitions.,,
In the (:onsidered opinion of this Court, a contractor cannot be fr rrced to pay for construction of Institute of Constructior Technologr of India at Hyderabad, If the State Goverr.ment wants to construct some building for the State Gc rernment, the funds a-re required to be paid by the State Exchequer and not by private individua_ls, that too ir the absence of arry statutory power empowering the State Government to do so. In the present case. there is no statutory provision oflaw which empowers th: State Government to issue such kind of Government )rder and direct a private person to pay for construction of a building for the State Government. Therefore, as the Government Order was issued without any statutor) authority, the same has rightiy been set aside by the I earned Single Judge. This Court also does not find any l eason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Si egle Judge.
\
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed" The
miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
\
SD/.CH.VEN KATESWARU LU DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// G,
SECTION OFFICER
To,
q
I ;
H|GH COURT t
DATED: 3011212021
1 t1t S i4 r,{:
o or
1
oo) 03 tEB 2022
'1,
JUDGMENT
WA.No.286 of 2008
,tt'
@
DISMISSING THEWRIT APPEAL
WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the appeal by holding the Government Order violated statutory authority.
Whether the High Court was justified in not interfering with the Single Judge's order allowing writ petitions challenging a 0.25% tax deduction.
State of Andhra Pradesh
Anil Babu
National Academy of Construction
Satish Chandra Sharma
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
