HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed declaring the inaction of the respondents not paying the amount of Rs.22,12,97,682.62/- to the petitioner towards the extent of work executed by the petitioner in pursuance of the work order in favour of the petitioner company vide letter dated 18.04.2011.

2. Heard Sri K.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGIIC for respondent No.1 and Sri M.V.Suresh, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit and contended that, despite several requests and reminders for payment of amounts towards construction work, withheld amounts, and other dues totaling Rs.9,26,71,341/-, Respondent No.1 has failed to make any payment to petitioner. It is further submitted that after persistent persuasion, respondent No.1 issued a cheque dated 02.08.2017 for Rs.74,24,034/- as part payment of the total amount due. Thereafter, petitioner approached respondent No.1 demanding payment of the remaining balance. However, respondent No.1 refused to release any further amount. The petitioner claims that respondent No.1 is liable to pay Rs.8,85,68,129.62/- towards dues, Rs.4,44,82,243/- towards compensation for damages, Rs.1,39,00,701/- towards loss of profit and Rs.7,43,46,609/- towards opportunity losses, aggregating to Rs.22,12,97,682.62/-. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 failed to fulfill its contractual obligations by not providing proper and specific drawings necessary for the execution of the work, despite several reminders. This according to petitioner, led to delays in completing the project within the stipulated period and caused financial losses.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the petitioner’s claim that works worth of Rs.12,28,05,219.62/- were executed.

It is contended that, in view of the petitioner’s failure to complete the work, the question of clearing the bills does not arise. The respondent argues that raising bills post- termination of the contract is improper and contrary to the terms agreed upon. The claimed amounts are stated to be baseless and are specifically denied. It is submitted that the construction of the IRDA office complex was a prestigious Central Government project entrusted to APIIC (now TSIIC). As per the agreement, petitioner was required to complete the work within 18 months. Due to delays attributable to petitioner, IRDA was unable to move into the newly constructed building, continued operating from rented premises, and APIIC’s reputation suffered. In a high-level meeting held on 01.11.2013, it was resolved that IRDA could engage another agency to complete the remaining work, and APIIC was directed to refund the unspent portion of the funds deposited by IRDA. Accordingly, the remaining work was awarded to M/s KPC Projects through the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), and the building was completed. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit stating that respondent No.2 had no role in awarding or terminating the contract and was unnecessarily made a party. It was stated that no allegations or material were placed against Respondent No.2, and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as against it.

6. In view of the submissions made by both parties and upon careful consideration of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the present dispute involves complex questions of fact relating to execution of works, payments, damages, and alleged breaches of contract, which require detailed evidence and examination. Such matters are not appropriately adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court finds no merit to entertain the writ petition.

7. Accordingly,