HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11567 of 2006
Date: September 04, 2014
Between:
B. Mahesh.
… Petitioner And
1. The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, T (R & B) Department, Hyderabad & 2 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11567 of 2006
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings appearing for the respondents.
2. The short point involved in the present writ petition is with regard to recovery of seigniorage charges for the materials used in execution of the work “Improvements to Satuluru to Nakerikallu Adda Road from Km.0/0 to 24/588 in Guntur District”. The value of the contract as per the agreement entered by the petitioner on 01.12.2001 was Rs.2,65,03,275/- and he completed the contract on 30.11.2002. During execution of the work, certain material attracting seigniorage charges was utilized and the seigniorage charges were recovered from the pending bills as per the conditions of the contract. The seigniorage charges recoverable in respect of the materials were indicated in para 2.11 of the agreement. Earth is not one of the items mentioned in the agreement, but seigniorage charges to a tune of Rs.46,072/- was recovered from the pending bills of the petitioner towards ordinary earth and for refund of the said amount, the present writ petition was filed.
3. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the seigniorage charges at the rate of Rs.13/- for cubic metre were recovered from the pending bills of the contractor as per G.O.Ms.No.466, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 24.08.2000, on the ground that the seigniorage charges can be recovered on Morrum/gravel/earth. Because all those items are similar, they recovered seigniorage charges on earth also. The final payment in respect of the work was made on 27..02.2004 and if there is any dispute with regard to payment of the amounts, the petitioner has to avail alternative remedy of filing a suit in respect of claims above Rs.50,000/- and in respect of claims below Rs.50,000/- the matter has to be preferred to the Chief Engineer (R & B), Hyderabad.
4. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to recovery of seigniorage charges of Rs.46,072/- from the petitioner and it is the case of the respondents that they have recovered seigniorage charges on earth treating it as same category of gravel/morrum. But in the contract earth was not mentioned and only gravel was mentioned at serial No.6. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3427 of 2003 held that respondents are not entitled to collect seigniorage charges for digging ordinary earth for execution of the contract work. The Division Bench came to the said conclusion on the basis of communication obtained from the Secretary to Government, Irrigation Department, dated 08.02.2003 stating that seigniorage charges cannot be recovered from the contractor if a clause towards recovery of seigniorage charges has not been covered under the agreement. In the instant case also earth is not one of the items of the agreement for effecting recovery of seigniorage charges.
5. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.46,072/- recovered towards seigniorage on earth while executing the work “Improvements to Satuluru to Nakerikallu Adda Road from Km.0/0 to 24/588 in Guntur District” by the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: September 04, 2014 BSB
3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.11567 of 2006
Date: September 04, 2014
BSB