The imposition of penalties must adhere to uniform standards, ensuring equitable treatment across similar cases and compliance with due process.

ORDER :

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…. to issue an appropriate writ or a direction and more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings issued by the Superintending Engineer, AVR HNSS, Circle No.1, B Camp, Kurnool, the 3^rd respondent herein in proceedings No.SE/AVR HNSS-I/KNL/TS/ 8AEE2/package 25 (works)737, dated 25.08.2011 and the consequential impugned letter bearing No. EE/HNSS/2KNL/P25/123 dated 15.02.2012/ 15.03.2013 issued by the Executive Engineer, AVR HNSS Division No.2, Kurnool, the 4^th respondent herein seeking to recover a sum of Rs.2,82,50,000/- is arbitrary and illegal and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release all the payments due to the petitioner and further direct the respondents to release a sum of Rs.14 crore as recommended by the technical committee in respect of package No. 25.….”

2. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the tenders called for by respondent No.3 for AVR HNSS Project package No.25 for investigation, preparation, hydraulic particulars, designs, drawings and excavation of HNSS main canal from KM 42.000 to KM 64.000, including CM & CD works and distribution system. The petitioner participated in the said tender and stood as a highest bidder for the same. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into an agreement No.SEH8EPC/2004-06, dated 26.02.2005 for package No.25, the estimated cost of the said works is Rs.56.50 crores and as per the said agreement, the petitioner was supposed to complete the work within 24 months from the date of the agreement i.e. before 25.02.2007. After awarding the contract and signing of the agreement, the petitioner herein mobilized sufficient men and material for executing the work. However, to start work one of the essential requirements was acquisition of land for excavation of canal. As the land owners were not paid any compensation amount after acquisition of the land, they have prevented the petitioner from proceeding with the excavation work. Further, respondent No.3 has also not taken any steps to handover the required land for excavation after doing needful to the land owners. Considering the said reasons, respondents, vide memo No.18021/Maj.Irri.VI/2010 dated 23.07.2010, have extended the time for completion of the work, up to 30.06.2011.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has completed 85.13% of the work, which is worth Rs.48.10 crores, by the end of August, 2010 and the value of balance work is Rs.8.40 crores only. However, on 01.03.2011, respondent No.3 issued tenders for execution of remaining 15% of the work, which was not completed by the petitioner and entered into an agreement with the third party on 13.05.2011 without issuing any notice to the petitioner.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said action of the respondents calling for tenders for the balance 15% work, even without issuing notice to the petitioner and before completion of time granted to the petitioner up to 30.06.2011 vide Memo No.18021/Maj.Irri.VI/2010 dated 23.07.2010, is illegal. Further, respondent No.3 informed the petitioner vide letter No.SE/AVR HNSS-I/KNL/TS/8AEE2/ package 25 (works) 737, dated 25.08.2011 that Superintending Engineer, AVR HNSS Circle No.1, Kurnool has notified to the EPC agency for deletion of critical part of work by invoking clause P.S.60 (C) to APDSS. Further, some part of main canal work was awarded to the other agency on tender basis for completion of the work as a whole as per the Government instructions and also instructed the respondent No.3 to recover 5% of finished contract amount