M/S Sri Laxmi Engineering Company, v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION No.34862 of 2012 ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the Assistant Government Pleader.

The petitioners challenge Memo No.27880/MIG.I/2011, dated 20.09.2012 as illegal, unjust, discriminatory and unconstitutional. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously referred to different contingencies that have arisen in the working of the agreements referred to in the Memo and tried to persuade this Court that retention of 3% money from each one of current bills from the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary, For appreciating the contention of the learned counsel, the impugned Memo is extracted hereunder:- "Memo No.27880/MIG.1/2011 Dated : 20-09-2012 Sub:- Suits - APHC - W.P.No.17760 & 17761 of 2012 filed by Sri M/s.Laxmi Engineering Company, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - for release of 3% retention money from the works bills - Reg. Ref:- 1.

From the M (MI) Note No.70/M(MI)//2011, Dt.26-11-2011.

2. Representation from the Managing Partner, M/s.Sri Laxmi Engineering Company, Hyderabad dated:nil.

3. Govt. Memo.No.27880/MIG.1/2011, dated 24.12.2011.

4. From the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Judgment dated 15-6-2012 in W.P.Nos.17760 & 17761 of 2012.

5. Govt.Memo.No.27880/MIG.1/2011, dt.17-7-2012.

6. From the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Hyderabad Lr.No.DCE(MI)/OT2-T3/JICA/1879/ WPNo.17760/2012, dt.3-8-2012.

<><><> In the circumstances reported by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Hyderabad in the reference 6th cited, the matter has been examined and he is advised to follow the agreement conditions for release of retention money to the agency.

2.

The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action accordingly. 3.

The Memo issued with the concurrence of Fin.

(Expr.PW) Deptt., vide U.O.No.23469/831/A1/ Expr.PW/12 dated : 1-9-2012."

One of the objections of the petitioners is that their representation is not considered in the right perspective and the authorities are showing discrimination in following the contractual clause of retaining the advance paid to the petitioners.

I have carefully perused the Memo, dated 20-09-2012. The Government has merely called upon the Chief Engineer to follow the agreement conditions for release of retention money to the agency. From the contents of impugned memo, I fail to appreciate that cause, in fact, has arisen for filing a writ petition on any of the grounds already referred. The Government had merely directed the Chief Engineer to follow the agreement conditions, for which the petitioners cannot and could not have any objection. If adherence is contrary to agreement conditions, the remedies available to the petitioners are not by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226, but the petitioners can certainly bring to the notice of the Chief Engineer and ask him to confine his decision to agreement conditions and if any deviation of agreement conditions is noticed, the petitioners can pursue to available legal remedies.

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________ S.V.BHATT, J Date:15-03-2016 Prv

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION No.34862 of 2012 Dated 15-03-2016 Prv