SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 58066

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
L.Narsinga Rao – Appellant
Versus
Sri K.Dharma – Respondent
CC 962/2020



HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15418 OF 2020 AND CONTEMPT CASE No.962 OF 2020

COMMON ORDER:

Writ Petition No.15418 of 2020 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to settle full and final payment in respect of contract work bearing No.8/2005-06 dt 29/4/2005 executed by 3rd respondent and consequently declares the action of respondent No.3 in threatening the petitioner to desist from approaching the Government by way of several representations as high handed one, unjust, contrary to law, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.…”

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

3. It is stated that petitioner was awarded contract for formation of MI Tank across Gangakatwa Vagu, Gundlamarpally H/o.Pilligundla Village, Marpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide Agreement No.8/2005-06 dated 29.04.2005 and he completed about 90% of the work, except the formation of left canal, which could not be executed due to delay in land acquisition by the Government and thereby, the work was stopped on 31.12.2008. It is further stated that the petitioner made several representations to the authorities and participated in a meeting on 09.02.2009 with the respondent No.3, explaining the issues but no action was taken. It is also stated that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.03.2009 to the Government. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 29.04.2011, asked the petitioner whether he was willing to complete the remaining work. The petitioner responded on 16.05.2011 seeking necessary documents to proceed, but no response was received. Thereafter, on 19.10.2011, respondent No.1 issued a memo terminating the contract. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.11.2011 requesting pre-closure of the contract and clearance of pending bills. Respondents later issued a letter dated 23.05.2012 proposing a settlement of Rs.7,43,000/-, which the petitioner rejected. It is further stated that the petitioners submitted several representations to the respondents requesting final measurements and settlement. On 11.02.2020, the respondent No.3 reiterated that the contract was closed towards full and final settlement at Rs.7,43,000. It is also stated that the petitioner gave reply on 18.03.2020 rejecting the same and once again requested for final site measurements and settlement as per contract terms. Stating that no action has been taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

4. On 21.09.2020, when the writ petition came up for hearing, this Court passed the following order:

“Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & CAD seeks four weeks time for filing counter.

Post on 14.10.2020.

In the meanwhile, the resopndnet No.3 shall consider the representation, dated 04.01.2020 submitted by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law. A copy of the order be communicated to the petitioner and also be placed on record before this Court by the next date of hearing.”

5. Alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order, dated 21.09.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15418 of 2020, the petitioner has filed Contempt Case No.962 of 2020.

6. The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & CAD has produced the copy of letter vide No.SE/IC/RRD/DSE/DEE-II/TS-5/ Gangakatwa/DEE-II/TS-5/Gangakatwa Vagu/2020-21/2434 dated

21.01.2021 addressed by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner.

7. In the aforesaid letter dated 21.01.2021, it is stated that the petitioner vide letter dated 18.01.2012 requested the respondent No.3 to delete the balance work from the contract purview and close the contract duly releasing the withheld amounts and deposits without imposing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top