B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-company herein invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No. l9005/m. II (1)/2001-3, dated 20-2-2002 issued by the first respondent and the consequential demand Notice No. 4823/ mr2/99, dated 15-3-2002 issued by the second respondent, as illegal, improper, unjust and violative of the principles of natural justice.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-company was awarded a work of site levelling and grading work (part of Group-I of Tender no. BHEL:ps:sct:808) in the plant area in 2 x 500 MW Simhadri Thermal Power project, near Visakhapatnam. Andhra pradesh by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals limited (BHEL) as sub-contract. We have noticed the details and terms and conditions of the sub-contract in W. P. No. 6916 of 2002 and Batch. The scope of the sub-contract entrusted to the petitioner involves (1) Earth work Excavation, back filling, disposal as per the specifications and drawings; (2) Earth work in filling and grading obtained from compulsory excavation; and (3) Supplying and filling earth as per specifications. The time allowed for completion of work was nine months. The letter of intent was issued to the petitioner- company by the BHEL vide letter dated 4-1-1999.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner-company, it had consumed total quantity of 18,06,026 cubic metres of material for the purpose of filling works. Out of which, a quantity of 1,67,000 cubic metres alone has been taken from the Government land under department of Mines and Geology, visakhapatnam. The balance quantity of filling material of earth i. e. , about 16,38,926 cubic metres was brought from outside the plant from borrow areas i. e. , ponds and private lands.

( 4 ) SHORN of all the details - it is asserted that the petitioner-company in the process of execution of the said contract work used the earth/soil as the filling material. The said earth/soil has been obtained from the approved borrow areas of the ponds and patta lands. It is not necessary to notice the further details except to note that the petitioner-company had also participated in the meeting convened and held on 4-9-1999 between the Department of Mines and geology, NTPC, BHEL and the agencies, which executed the work along with other sub -contractors. In the said meeting it was agreed that the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology concerned shall decide as to the nature of filling material utilised by the sub-contractors. Accordingly, a joint inspection was conducted by the Deputy director of Mines and Geology, visakhapatanam and Assistant Director of mines and Geology on 16-3-1999 and, thereafter, another meeting was held on 4-9-1999 by the Director of Mines and geology with all the sub-contractors and the officials of NTPC and BHEL to discuss about the payment of seigniorage fee by the sub - contractors including the petitioner herein and certain procedure was agreed upon by and between the participants. Admittedly, the BHEL communicated the minutes of the said meeting to all the sub-contractors including the petitioner herein requiring them to inform the Mines Department about the quantity of material used by them in filling works. The Deputy Director by proceedings dated 24-9-1999 communicated the minutes of the said meeting to the petitioner also.

( 5 ) BE it as it may, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam issued show-cause notice dated 1-4-2000 to BHEL to show cause as to why the seigniorage fee along with five times penalty should not be collected in respect of the total quantity of filling material utilised by the principal contractor as well as the sub contractors. The bhel after receiving the said show-cause notice appears to have stopped the release of the bills to the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company filed W. P. No. 4655 of 2000 seeking a direction to the BHEL to release their bill amount. This Court by its order dated 28-4-2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document