Public officers must ensure timely compliance with contractual obligations, emphasizing accountability in their actions.

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Ms. Aishwarya Nagula, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for MAUD and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation.

2. Having regard to the facts of the case, at the very outset, this Court is constrained to observe the sorry state of affairs prevailing in the Respondent No.2 - Corporation.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has executed contractual works, which are described in Para 3 of the Affidavit; and that the said works were initially allotted on 09.03.2011 and were completed by the petitioner strictly following the terms and conditions, without any delay or remark from any quarter.

4. It is stated that the total valuation of the work as per the Agreement is Rs.43,53,019/-, and out of the said amount, Respondent No.2 paid only Rs.23,87,972/- after the lapse of one year. The Petitioner approached this Court for recovery of the due amount of Rs.23,71,000/- by filing Writ Petition No.8258 of 2013. Vide Judgment dated 06.03.2024, this Court had directed the Respondent Corporation to pay the balance amount of Rs.23,71,000/- to the Petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.

5. It is submitted that during the commencement of the Contract in the first week of March, 2011, the Petitioner had deposited the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.2,41,532/-, and the Respondents were obligated to refund the same after completion of the defect liability period of 24 months as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The said defect liability period was completed on 10.03.2013. Despite the passage of more than 13 years, the Respondent Corporation has not refunded the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.2,41,532/-.

6. When the present Writ Petition came up for hearing on 22.01.2026, this Court had called up for Written Instructions. The Commissioner has rendered Written Instructions on 23.01.2026 stating that the then Commissioner, vide Proceedings dated 30.12.2011, had recommended payment of 50% of the bill amount due to the Petitioner and that the issue was to be enquired into by the Vigilance Department. The Written Instructions have not stated anything about the return of EMD. However, it is stated in the Written Instructions that the EMD has not been returned, since the amount has been kept as security to await the outcome of the Vigilance enquiry.

7. Having noted the contentions in the Written Instructions, this Court had called for entire records with a direction to ensure appearance of responsible Officer who is familiar with the records.

8. Sri P. Venu Gopal, E.E., Guntur, is present along with the records. He stated that except in the written noting dated 30.12.2011 of the Commissioner, there is no Proceedings on the file by which Vigilance Enquiry has been initiated. Thus noting has been done on the report submitted by the EOA with certain observations.

9. On perusal of the said note submitted by the EOA, it transpires that the EOA has made certain observations with regard to fixation of rates, which has nothing to do with the Contractor/Petitioner, who has performed the Contract. Para No.8 of the said Note would indicate that the Pre Audit accepts the fact that the Agreement Rate has to be paid to the Contractor. However, it is also noted that there is an abnormal difference between the APSPDCL SSR rates/Market rates and the rate adopted by the Engineering Authorities, causing huge loss to the Institution.

10. In any case, the said note would only indicate that the fixation of rates by the Authorities is defective, and this