ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue a order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned recovery letters of the 3rd and 4th respondents vide proceedings respectively Lr.No.SE/JNLIS/TS/TO/V&E/2074, DATED 29.08.2018 and EE/PJP/ED-2/GDL/TS/ATO/St.I&II/2020-21/927, dated 14.09.2020, in pursuance to the 1st respondent Memo No.4916/Vigilance/A2/2018-1, dated 13.07.2018, basing on Vigilance Report of 2nd respondent bearing No.38/C.651/V&E/E1/2013, dated 19.05.2018, as ex-facie illegal, misconceived, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside aforesaid impugned orders of the 1st, 3rd and 4th respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioner is one of the leading infrastructures and consortium services companies in India.

b) The 3rd respondent vide NIT No.32/NKLI/2004-05, dated 12.01.2005 invited bids for the work of Stage I, Pumping Station near Guddam Doddi Village, Dharur Mandal, of Nettampadu Lift Irrigation Project, Mahaboobnagar District. The 3rd respondent in its bid made known the scope of work as also terms and conditions for executing the works through the Instructions to bidders. Instructions to the tenderers required an offer to be made quoting the lump sum price for the works. The petitioner quoted the price as per instructions to bidders in the bid invited by the 3rd respondent.

c) The 2nd respondent (V&E) submitted the report No.38/C.651/V&E/E1/2013, dated 09.05.2018 to the 1st respondent that on comparison of the estimates of the contract which includes provisions with regard to Excise duty, insurance, price adjustment and TOT (Turnover Tax), the estimate has provisions of Central Excise Duty of Rs.31,98,00,000/-, insurance of Rs.7,63,00,000/-, price adjustment of Rs.52,81,026/- and amount towards TOT 6,64,00,000/- whereas, the petitioner has not paid/incurred said amounts, hence, the same has to be recovered.

d) The 1st respondent vide Memo No.4916/Vigilance II/2018-7, dated 02.06.2020, while referring the Vigilance report No.38(C.No.651/V&E/E1/2013, dated 08.05.2013, have directed the Engineer-in-Chief (Irrigation) I & CAD Department to recover an amount of Rs.46,77,81,023/- from the petitioner. Basing on the said memo of the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent issued letter No.SE/JNLIS/TS/TO/V&E/2074, dated 29.08.2018 for recovery of Rs.46,77,81,026/-, primarily on the ground that the amounts paid/incurred by the petitioner under certain heads of the work contract were allegedly in less of the internal estimates made by the Irrigation & CAD Department, Telangana in a departmental document titled the Internal Benchmark Estimate. The IBM Estimate is a document prepared by the I&CAD purely for internal purposes and contains the internally estimated costs for each component of the project such as the cost of raw material, insurance etc.

e) The petitioner quoted contract price keeping in view of all the duties and taxes in consequence of his obligations under the contract. While quoting contract price, the petitioner did not consider Central Excise duty on E&M equipment, as the same was exempted by the Government of India since 06.09.2002. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent, in brief, is as follows:

a) The Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Hyderabad City II Unit conducted enquiry and found deficiency/irregularities in 1st work Kolisagar Project State II, with an agreement value of Rs.175.32 crores and 2nd work Nettampadu-Jawahar Lift Irrigation Scheme with an agreement value of Rs.338.53 crore.

b) During the course of enquiry, the Vigilance & Enforcement authorities along with Technical Engineers of the 4th respondent i.e Officials of Irrigation