Unilateral deductions from contractual payments without notice violate principles of natural justice and are illegal under Article 14 of the Constitution.

COMMON ORDER:

Heard learned counsel Sri K.Pratik Reddy, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and learned Advocate General Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No. 12230 of 2013 approached the court seeking the prayer as under:

“to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed, unilateral and illegal action of the respondents in recovering huge amount of Rs.51,92,500/ from the bills payable to the petitioner in respect of the work orders pertaining to 31 AL Express bus bodies covered under Work Order No 15/2010-11-MED dt. 3.12.2010 and also in respect of 32 Palle Velugu buses covered under Work Order No 15/2011-12-MED dt.16.5.2011 without considering and disposing of several representations as being illegal arbitrary without jurisdiction contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent corporation to forthwith refund the said amount to the petitioner and to pass….”

3. The petitioner in W.P.No. 11970 of 2013 approached the court seeking the prayer as under:

“...to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed and unilateral action of the respondents (1) in recovering huge amount of Rs.13,75,303.79 upto 17.4.2013 from the bills payable to the petitioner by invoking clause (15)(g)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the agreement dated 30.5.2011 under the guise of alleged delay of drawal of chassis of A.V.Pallevelugu vide work order No 15/2011-12-MED dt.16.5.2011, (2) in not re- scheduling the drawl of chassis and supply of buses as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to principles of natural justice, contrary to clause 7(a) of the agreement and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to refund Rs.13,75,303.79 recovered upto 17.4.2013 and reschedule the drawl of chassis and supply of busses...”

4. PERUSED THE RECORD :

5. The case of the Petitioner in W.P.No. 12230 of 2013, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner in support of the said w rit petition is as under :

a) It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent corporation issued tender notification No. C&B-01/2010 dated 27.2.2010. The petitioner firm in response to the same submitted a tender and was identified as the L1(lowest Bidder) and despite the same the respondent nos. 1 to 3 did not consider petitioner’s bid. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the petitioner filed W.P No. 19088 of 2010 before this court. The court vide order dated 20.08.2010 passed an interim order directing the APSRTC to negotiate with the petitioner and the second lowest bidder.

b) Pursuant to the aforesaid orders passed by this court, the respondent corporation had issued two work orders to the petitioner i.e., 1. Work Order No. 15/2010-11 MED dated 03.12.2010 for building bus bodies for 31 AL express buses at fixed price of Rs. 5,56,200 per bus and for 79 pallevelugu buses at Rs.6,01,356.70 per bus as on 2-04-2011 and 2. Work order No. 15/2011-12/MED dt.16.05.2011 was issued for the PalleVelugu Buses.

c) Further, according to the delivery schedule, the petitioner was expected to deliver 79 PalleVelugu buses between May 2011 and March 2012 and for express Buses Respondent outlined a delivery schedule for supplying chassis which respondent failed to abide. Due to irregular, untimely and uninformed delivery of the chassis by the respondent, the petitioner was unable to deliver the bus bodies as per date mentioned in agreement. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a representation 04.08.2012 before the respondent authorities submitting the delay of the respondents in providing fabrications of Pallevelugu Bus bodies as per the work order and the non-receipt of payment on three invoices from 20.06.2012. However, the same was not taken into