C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J

This writ appeal arises out of order dated 04.02.2003 in WP.No.10925 of 2001 of the learned Single Judge, whereby he allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent - writ petitioner.

The brief facts, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are as under:

The respondent is a registered contractor with the irrigation department of the Government of A.P. It was entrusted with execution of a part of work "formation of earthen bund" under agreement No.1/88-89. Due to certain reasons, which are not germane to be discussed, the work spilled beyond the scheduled date of completion. The parties entered into four supplemental agreements bearing agreement Nos.16/93-94, 1/95096, 3/96-97 and 25/96-97 dated 17.09.1993, 02.05.1995, 22.06.1996 and 07.08.1996 respectively. The respondent claimed that the work was completed on 21.08.1996 and its further security and earnest money deposits to the tune of about Rs.16,00,000/- were not paid to it.

Another work was awarded to the respondent pertaining to the Telugu Ganga Project Main Canal under agreement No.25/98-99. During the course of execution of this work, appellant No.2 issued communication dated 08.11.2000 to the effect that audit objections were raised in respect of agreement No.1/88-89, that excess payment to the extent of Rs.59.18 lakhs was made to the respondent on account of erroneous computation of the amount payable under the item of work "loading and unloading" of excavated earth. This was followed by another communication emanating from the appellants wherein while reiterating their stand on excess payment, they proposed recovery of Rs.68.34 lakhs from the work bills pertaining to agreement No.25/98-99. These two communications are questioned in WP.No.10925 of 2001 filed by the respondent on multiple grounds.

Before the learned Single Judge, the respondent-writ petitioner mainly urged three contentions, namely; that (i) the impugned action of the appellants in seeking to recover the alleged excess payment was in violation of principles of natural justice, as the same was not preceded by any notice and opportunity to the respondent, (ii) Clause 71 of the Preliminary Specifications to APDSS per se does not apply to agreement No.1/88-89, as the work was executed and the respondent's obligations under the contract was discharged and (iii) even if Clause 71 applies, the same cannot be invoked in respect of the amount purportedly paid under mistake without prior determination of the respondent's liability.

The appellants resisted the contentions of the respondent by questioning the very maintainability of the writ petition filed raising disputes under a concluded contract. They have further urged that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Executive Engineer, Irrigation Circle-3, Nizamabad v. C.Raghava Reddy 1993 (2) ALT 80 (DB), no prior determination of the respondent's liability need be made.

The learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition. He also held that the impugned action was in violation of principles of natural justice, as no prior opportunity was given to the respondent. While dealing with the judgment of the Division Bench in Executive Engineer (1 supra), the learned Judge held that while the ratio laid down therein is unexceptionable, Clause 71 of PS to APDSS ex facie does not apply to the case on hand, as the contract in respect of which the respondent is found due of the amounts was completely executed and that Clause 71 applies only to cases where the contracts were under the execution stage. The learned Judge went a step further and held that in view of Clause 73, the appellants are at liberty to file a suit, establish their case of mistaken payment and seek recovery of the amounts.

We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD for the appellants and Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior counsel for the respondent. We have also careful