THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.1796 OF 2009 Dated 29th June, 2010 Between:
Mygapula Durga Prasad …Petitioner And P.V.Purnachandra Rao and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Narahari Babu Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Irrigation and Command Area Development The Court made the following ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of order dated 17.07.2009 in Writ Petition No.12947 of 2009.
The petitioner, who executed work pertaining to removal of shoals and desilting in Kovvada Kalva under Work Order dated 07.06.2008 filed Writ Petition No.12947 of 2009 for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in settling and paying the final bill in respect of the said work. This Court, by order dated 17.07.2009, disposed of the said writ petition by recording the statement of the learned Government Pleader that the final bills will be prepared and submitted to Pay and Accounts Officer, Drainage Wing, Eluru for payment to the petitioner after obtaining the records from the ACB, which has seized the whole record. Complaining of non-compliance with the said order, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case.
After taking some adjournments, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, reported to the Court on 24.06.2010 that the respondents have settled the final bill at Rs.5,59,134/- and have prepared cheques for the said amount and also for another sum of Rs.1,80,500/- towards EMD returnable to the petitioner and that the cheques were sent through a messenger to the petitioner. Today, at the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the cheques sent through the Messenger could not be served on the petitioner, as he was not available at his residence. At the hearing, Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, agreed to receive the cover containing the cheques in the Court from the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Accordingly, he has received the cover by signing the acknowledgment on behalf of his client. The acknowledgment was returned by the learned counsel to the learned Assistant Government Pleader in proof of receipt of the cover. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that the respondents have not properly settled the final bill of the petitioner and that his client is entitled to receive much more amount than the amounts offered by the respondents.
In my opinion, the quantum of the amount receivable by the petitioner is not adjudicated in the writ petition and therefore, the said issue falls outside the scope of the Contempt Case. Therefore, the petitioner is left free to question the correctness or otherwise of the final bill in appropriate proceedings. Without prejudice to this right of the petitioner, the Contempt Case is closed.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 29th June, 2010 vrn