Back
2008 Supreme(AP) 868
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY
State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by The District Collector - Appellant
Versus
T.V.Krishna Reddy (died) Per LRs T. Jayalakshmi & Others - Respondents
Appeal Suit No.24 of 2002
Decided on: 14-10-2008
For the Petitioner:Advocate General. For the Respondent:R2 – R5 R. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate.
Headnote:(A) Contract Act, 1872, Sections 6 and 4—Termination of work contract—Plaintiff could not complete the work due to fault of the department—Plaintiff is entitled to claim damages. (Para 31)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Sections 80 and 20—Suit against Government—Necessity of prior notice—Provisions under Section 80 CPC and Section 20 CPC operate in different fields, without there being any overlapping—When the claim is not settled, it is open to plaintiff to file suit in any Court within whose jurisdiction even a part of cause of action has arisen under Section 20 CPC—Mere service of notice under Section 80 CPC does not give rise to cause of action—Notice under Section 80 is issued only after cause of action had arisen—If suit is proposed to be filed against State Government, it is sufficient if notice is issued to Collector of District—Claim made by a claimant in form of notice under Section 80 CPC furnishing all necessary and relevant details of the claim affords an opportunity to State to settle said claim at the pre-litigation stage itself. (Para 21, 22 and 25)
G.V. Seethapathy, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2001 in O.S.No.141 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, wherein, the suit filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,59,420/-with interest at 24% per annum, was decreed in part for a sum of Rs.6,31,724/- with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum, till the date of realization.
2. The first respondent herein filed suit against the appellant-State in OS No.149 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, which was later transferred to the District Court, Nellore and renumbered as OS No.141 of 1997, with the following averments:
The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada invited tenders for the work of 'Construction of Double Lane Bridge at M 14/7 + 200 of K.W.Bank Canal', at Vallabhapuram village, Emani Taluq, Guntur district in the year 1991. The plaintiff submitted his tenders, depositing Rs.48,500/- by way of demand draft on 06.04.1991 towards security for due fulfillment of the contract. His tender, being lowest, was accepted by the Superintending Engineer and he entered into an agreement on 07.09.1991 at Vijayawada and paid Rs.27,500/-towards earnest money deposit. As per the agreement, the plaintiff had to complete the work within 15 months from the date of handing over of the site. The site was handed over to the plaintiff on 22.09.1991. The plaintiff made all necessary arrangements to complete the work within the stipulated period, by investing large amounts for labour, machinery, equipment etc. The work consists of excavation of foundations for the piers, two abutments and retaining walls, filling foundations with sand, laying concrete for foundations of the piers, retaining walls, construction of superstructure of the piers, abutments on either side of the bridge etc. According to the plaintiff, there was water flow in the canal and the Department did not take steps to stop flow of water till the end of January 1992, in spite of representations dated 02.12.1991 and 18.01.1992 made by the plaintiff. Further, in view of the nature of the soil, the Field Officer reviewed the foundation designs and felt it necessary to obtain modified designs and drawings from the Chief Engineer, Central Designs Organization, Hyderabad (CDO). The flow of water in the canal stopped after January 1992 and the plaintiff could not commence the work, because the modified foundation designs and drawings for the proposed construction were not supplied to him in spite of requests. The plaintiff made representation to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada on 22.12.1991, explaining the reasons for not commencing the work. He also repudiated the contract and demanded return of earnest money deposit (EMD) and Final Security Deposit (FSD) and also claiming damages for the breach of contract. The Executive Engineer determined the contract on 29.01.1993 under Clause -60(a) of
A.P.S.S. Rules, purporting to forfeit the deposited amounts by his letter dated 29.01.2003, which is unjust and illegal. The plaintiff received the said communication at his residence at Venkatramapuram, Nellore. Because of the attitude of the Department, the plaintiff sustained loss to a tune of Rs.3,82,000/-. He is also entitled for damages for loss of probable profit at 10% value of the work, which comes to Rs.3,76,000/-. The plaintiff is also entitled for refund of the deposited amounts, besides interest at 24% per annum.
1. 3. Subsequent to filing of the suit, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5, who are the respondents 2 to 5 herein.
4. Theappellant-defendant filed written statement contending in brief as follows:
The plaintiff has taken possession of the site with a delay of 21/2 months and the flow of water in the canal was cut o
