HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITIION No. 54 OF 2007 DATED 11TH AUGUST, 2014.
BETWEEN M/s. Sri Avantika-Sai Venkata (JV) Rep. By its Authorized Signatory Sri A.Sreeramulu …..Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Secretary (Projects), Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors.
….Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITIION No. 54 OF 2007
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for mandamus declaring letter No.DB/JTO6/W/4/24 EPC, dated 05.12.2006 issued by the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable both in fact and law.
This Court through interim order dated 02.01.2007 suspended the impugned letter.
On 14.03.2005 the petitioner entered into an agreement with the second respondent for execution of work covered by Package 66 of Indira Sagar Project. On 25.08.2005 the third respondent sanctioned and released mobilization advance amounting to Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The dispute between the parties has arisen in effecting recovery of mobilization advance in terms of Clause 42 of the agreement. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, a few developments have taken place and there is no dispute between the parties on these aspects of developments. To narrow down the controversy, the petitioner has filed additional affidavit for consideration of this Court. In view of the above circumstances, I am not proposing to consider in detail the averments in Writ affidavit as well as counter affidavit. The outlines of the case are as follows:
On 25.08.2005 as stated above, the third respondent sanctioned and released mobilization advance amounting to Rs.1,50,00,000/-. On 05.05.2006 the second respondent by referring to the decision taken by the Central Empowered Committee dated 28.04.2006 directed the petitioner to stop the work of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project till necessary permission is obtained in this regard. It is averred by the petitioner that it was compelled to stop the work and demobilize men and machinery from the site. It is by referring to the demobilization and also Clause 49.2 of the agreement, the impugned letter is issued by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the mobilization advance with interest at 8%.
From the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner has resumed the execution of work at site and a few bills have been certified by the third respondent and forwarded for payment to the department. Once work is resumed at site it is presupposes redeployment of men and machinery by petitioner for which mobilization advance was paid. Either objection of the petitioner or reply of the respondents will have only academic consideration for this Court. Further, the petitioner through additional affidavit volunteered for the adjustment of mobilization advance from the payment in the running bills. The excerpt in the additional affidavit is as follows:
“…….I submit that the said amount may be directed to be adjusted against the Machinery Advance as per clause No.49.6.1 GCC of Contract Agreement.”
The above averment is placed on record and the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders by keeping in mind the statement excerpted above and also the reply of the petitioner dated 12.12.2006 and 16.12.2006. Till a decision as indicated above is taken by the respondents, suspension granted by this Court shall be in force. The respondents are directed to complete the above exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any deviation in the bills already submitted by the petitioner is noticed by respondents, the same should be pointed out to petitioner without further loss of time.
The Writ Petition is ordered. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending consideration in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE S.V. BHATT DATED 11TH AUGUST, 2014.
Msnro