AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri Y.Sai Teja, learned counsel representing Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance Department appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
"...to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the Respondents in releasing the excess recovered payments and direct the department to record the Final part bills and release the EMD and FSD amounts in respect of the projects (i) "Widening and Strengthening of PWD road to Anantharam-Narayanagudem Road from Km 0/0 to 12/0 in Nalgonda District vide Agreement Bond No.102/2015-16 Dt:18/03/2016 with The Superintending Engineer, R&B Department, Nalgonda, (ii) "Widening and strengthening of Road from SNTGJ PWD to NH44 via Allapur, Imampur from Km 0/0 to 5/0 in Medak District" vide Agreement Bond No.2/2018-19 Dt: 04/04/2018 with The Superintending Engineer R&B Department, Medak and (iii) "Widening and Strengthening of Road from A) PWD Road to Yadaram from 0/0 to 7/600 B) Lalgadi-Malakpet to Hyderabad Karimnagar Ramagundam Road from km 0/0 to 3/8 in Medchal-Malkajgiri District" vide Agreement Bond No.41/2018-19 Dt:01/03/2019 with The Superintending Engineer, R&B Department, Rural Circle, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release payments pertaining to the above mentioned works by duly calculating the recoveries i.e. 10% on Seigniorage Charges in respect of 4th Part Bill instead of 30% Recovery and also along with interest from the date of completion of work till the date of realisation or to pass."
The case of the petitioner in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, is as under:
Petitioner was entrusted with the following works by the respondents and completed the same successfully within the stipulated period:
Widening and strengthening of PWD Road to Anantharam-Narayanagudem Road from Km 0/0 to 12/0 in Nalgonda District, vide Agreement Bond No.102/2015-16, dated 18.03.2016;
Widening and strengthening of Road from SNTGJ PWD to NH-44 via Allapur, Imampur from Km 0/0 to 5/0 in Medak District, vide Agreement Bond No.2/2018-19, dated 04.04.2018; and
Widening and Strengthening of (A) PWD Road to Yadaram from Km 0/0 to 7/600 and (B) Lalgadi-Malakpet to Hyderabad-Karimnagar-Ramagundam Road from Km 0/0 to 3/8 in Medchal-Malkajgiri District, vide Agreement Bond No.41/2018-19, dated 01.03.2019.
Though the first work was completed on 30.04.2021, the respondents have failed to record the Final Bill and release the amounts, including FSD.
The second work was completed on 30.06.2021 and the third work on 31.03.2022. However, despite completion of the works, the respondents have failed to record the final bills and release the EMD/FSD and other admitted amounts due to the petitioner.
Despite repeated requests, the respondents have failed to release the admitted amounts. The petitioner has invested substantial amounts and availed machinery loans for execution of the works and is liable to pay monthly EMIs. Owing to withholding of the admitted payments, the petitioner is facing severe financial hardship and has received notices from the banks. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.
PERUSED THE RECORD.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions:
The petitioner was entrusted with three different works vide Agreement Bond No.102/2015-16, dated 18.03.2016, Agreement Bond No.2/2018-19, dated 04.04.2018 and Agreement Bond No.41/2018-19, dated 01.03.2019.
The petitioner completed the said works in all aspects as per the specifications, terms and conditions of the said agreements.
In the (4th) part bill submitted by the petitioner, DMF was recovered at (30%) over the seigniorage charges, as against DCF.
An excess amount of Rs.4,35,581/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty-Five Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty-One Only) was recovered from the petitioner.
The petitioner brought the said excess recovery to the notice of the Superintending Engineer, R&B Regional Office, Nalgonda, by way of a letter. However, no response was received.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 01.11.2025 to respondent No.6, requesting refund of the excess amount of Rs.4,35,581/- recovered from the petitioner.
Though the said representation was acknowledged by the office of respondent No.6 on 01.11.2025, no action had been taken thereon till date.
The petitioner is not insisting for the grant of the main prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition and that the limited relief sought for by the petitioner is a direction to respondent No.6 to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put forth vide the representation dated 01.11.2025 addressed to respondent No.6 herein.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.
Learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11, contends that the writ petition could be disposed of directing respondent No.6 herein to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put forth vide the petitioner's representation dated 01.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law.
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:
The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11,
The discussion and conclusion as arrived at paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the present order,
The writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.6 herein to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put forth vide the petitioner's representation dated 01.11.2025, which had been acknowledged by the office of respondent No.6 herein on 01.11.2025, and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, in conformity with the principles of natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner herein, on the petitioner's representation dated 01.11.2025 pertaining to the release of the excess amount of Rs.4,35,581/- recovered from the petitioner, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and duly communicate the decision on the petitioner's representation dated 01.11.2025 to the petitioner herein. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.