Disposed

M/s Premier Plastic Industries v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Sept 2024WP/16403/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged the deduction of labour cess from running bills without including it in estimates. The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of orders passed in a previous writ petition (W.P. No. 11269 of 2009), directing respondents to include cess in estimates for specified works and not deduct amounts unless included.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to include 1% labour cess in estimates for relevant works and not deduct any amount unless included in estimates.

M/s Premier Plastic Industries Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16403 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s Premier Plastic lndustries,_ rep.by -its partner, Vinay Agrawal, S/o. Ravindra Agrawat, aged about 3s_yeijrsl 3tGr;;;;'Ftoor.7_r, "(rri,i"rrlo"u Centre, Ranigunj, Seiunderabaa-SdOOOg.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

state of re-langana, Rurar water and sanitation Department. panchayat Raj a nd Ru rat Devetonment, Secretariat, uyoerauio, nEp i;;;ir' p;;iri;, "' Secretary.

¶12

'^{3[?ERn E;:J;} [ .?,i'F[5:'.fl,.H:ilii!gy.a^{nd san ita tion De pa rtmenr}

¶13

3 The superintendent Engineer, RWS ands circre, sangareddy, Medak District.

¶14

The Executive Engineer, RWS and s Division, sangareddy, Medak District.

¶15

The Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District.

¶16

..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High colrt in{, oe preasea lo issue a writ or order or direction more particurarty in tne nature of^'wiit of !!f31u9_Aeclaring^{the action of the 2nd respond'entissued} in memo No. AE/DEE(vlG)NandE/Labour cess / RWSands works/2O17 dated 2B-11-2o17and the consequentiar action of the 4th respondent in deducting the rabour cess 1 g:J9:"!^from the running bils for the work referred to in the ,g-ru"r"ni No nrgzl12013-14 dated 23-08-2013 as illegel; arbihaiy and one wii-hout lurisoiction ano cansequently direct the respondent to refund the withheld amount with interest at 1 8 percent

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶19

Petition under section^{151 cPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} restrain the respondents^{iromrecoveiing/deducting1 percent Labour cess from the} |.unning^{account bilts/work bills of the petitioner in respectof the work^ b-eing} in pursuance of the^{agreement No. AEE21----2O13-14dated23-08-2013} "r""rt]"A pending disposal of tl'e^{W P}

¶20

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRl.VENKATESWERLLU KESAMSETTY}

¶21

gounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT^{RAJRURAL DEV} The Court^{madethe following: ORDER}

¶22

) )

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶25

WRIT PETITION No .1640,3 0F 2()18

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is filed questioning action of the respondent No.2 in resorting to recover L%o labowr cess from the petitioner's contract works without adding same to the Gross amount of the bill.

¶28

Heard both sides and perused the record.

¶29

When the matter is taken up for hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submits that the /is in the writ petition is squarely covered by orders in W.p.No. 11269 of 2009 and batch dated 22.1O.2OO9 and requested to pass similar order in tl.is writ petition. The same is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents.

¶30

4 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by this court in the writ petition referred to above and for the reasons alike, the present writ

¶31

I I

¶32

¶33

SK'J W.P.No.16403^{oJ 2018}

¶34

1n petition 1S disposed^{of interms oforders passed} W.P.No. 11269^{ot2OOg and batch dated22'|O'2OO9'}

¶35

1S disposed^of 5 AccordinglY,^{this writPetition}

¶36

directing^that:

¶37

I The respondents^{shall include 17o cess in tlle} estimates^{for the works which they proposeto} unrlertake,^{if the work continuesfor or beyond} twelve months^{and involvesengagement of 1O} workers or^{more; and}

¶38

U. The^{respondents shall not deductany' amount} towards cess,^{unlessthe correspondingalnount} is included^{in the estimates'}

¶39

The Registry^{is directed to annex copy of Order} dated. 22.10.2009^{passed in W'P'No'11269 of 2OO9 and}

¶40

batch.

¶41

As a sequel^{thereto,miscellaneousapplications' if any}

¶42

pendi.g, shall^{stand closed.}

¶43

SD/-K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secrrbrrJB)rrcen \

¶44

To,

¶45

1 The Principal Secretary,^{Rural Water and Sanitation Department'Panchayat} njiand RLral^{Development, Secretariat'Hyderabad}

¶46

2 The Enoineer- in- Chief, Rural^{Water Supply and Sanitation Department'} SRTGN"Bhavan. Sth Floor,^{Erramanzil. Hyderabad}

¶47

3 The superintendent^{Engineer, RWS ands circle,Sangareddy, Medak District}

¶48

E-*"5,

¶49

i ;l

¶50

The^{ExecutiveEngineer'RWS and S Division' Sangareddy' Medak District}

¶51

The^{Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer' Sangareddy' Medak District'}

¶52

One^{CC to SRI VENKATESWERLLU KESAMSETTYAdvocate[OPUC]} 7 Twb CCs to^{GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURALDEV'High Court for the} ' siiie of Telangana [oUT]

¶53

Two^{CD CoPies}

KK6 BS et IL,,

HIGH COURT

DATED:10 10912024

\ \

ORDER

WP.No.16403 of²⁰¹⁸

Fr/'
1\ \E ST4,.
<br>(
Q
)
c 3 il tlE[ 2r]24 <br>l(
N
vi. -\ ,/
^/
'-. - l - ' ,2,
,-J-'/

¶63

I
/

¶64

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

$ (,

M/s Premier Plastic Industries v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Premier Plastic Industries v. State of Telangana

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

Smt.Badavath Sarada, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Habeebunnisa Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Radarapu Sambareddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Balakrishna Distributing Company, Vs Prl.Secy., Agrl. dept., State of T.S.

M/S. Premier Plastic Industries Vs State of Telangana

V. Jaganmohan, Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary