THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA REVIEW I.A.No.1 of 2024 in WRIT PETITION NO: 18769 of 2023

ORDER:

The present Review Petition is filed by the Review Petitioners/Respondents in the Writ Petition seeking for review of the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.18769 of 2023 dated 16.11.2023 by pleading various grounds as enumerated in the accompanying affidavit. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that on perusal of the orders of this Court, it is found that some of the facts are not brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader at the time of passing of the final orders in the Writ Petition. The said mistake of fact is caused due to lack of information and the matter was disposed of basing upon the written instructions without inviting counter-affidavit.

3. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that in all cases in which works are not covered by the original agreement are ordered, the rates for such items of work should be settled as laid down in Clause 7 of the conditions printed in the form of piece work agreement or Clause 63 of the preliminary specifications of the AP Detailed Standard Specifications. The revised estimate or deviation statement providing such extra items of work for them requires the sanction of a higher authority. The Agency should not commence the work without the approval of the competent authority.

4. Learned counsel for the review petitioners/respondents further submits that even after execution of works there were no disputes or complaints raised by the Agency regarding the execution of works as all the bills were paid as per the agreement. After receipt of payments, the respondents/agency herein never made a representation to release the due amount. It is true work was done by the agency as per the agreement conditions. But Agency claiming for the additional work is beyond scope of the agreement value without the approval of the revised estimate or supplemental agreements from the competent authority.

5. Learned counsel for the review petitioners/authorities further submits that the Project Director, APWSIP, Guntur has addressed to the Director of Woks Accounts stating that the APWSIP assisted by the World Bank was closed on 31.10.2018 and instructions were issued for payment of APSWIP Works will be made on or before above said date for the bills presented and submitted the claim to the World Bank in the first week of November, 2018. For the reasons known to the Agency, even after alleged completion of the above work the agency M/s. P.S.R Constructions, Ongole, did not come forward any bills for payment on or before the cut of date as on

31.10.2018 to the office for payment.

6. He further submits that the agency never approached the department for the above mentioned alleged pending bills and the agency had not responded properly and not acted timely and not approached the Department within the stipulated time. In the meanwhile, the World Bank funds were lapsed and the Head of Account is also closed. He further submits that in view of the specific facts and due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner as stated the order of this Court is liable to be reviewed.

7. He further submits that the amounts claimed by the petitioner in Writ Petition/respondent No.1 herein were neither supported by way of any approved final bills nor work measurement books by any authorities concerned. In the absence of the same, the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein cannot claim the payments pursuant to the alleged additional agreement, without there being proper admission on the part of the review petitioners. He further submits that it is true at the time of hearing the writ petition the respondents furnished written instructions as if the claim is in relation to original agreement and without considering the amounts claimed by the petitioner. The amounts claimed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein are pursuant to the agreement No.25/2010-11 dated 2