High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court rnay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of the Respondents in withholding an amount of Rs.20,00,gg8/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Fight hundred and eighty eight only) despite making innumerable representations as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 1g(1Xg) of the constitution of lndia and consequenily direct the Respondent herein to release Rs.20,00,B88/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Eight hundred and eighty eight only) with interest or 24 percentage p.a. from the date the amounts fell due lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents herein to consider the representations of the petitioner and release the amount of Rs.20,00,888/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Eight hundred and eighty eight only) in a time bound manner Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. TNDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3to5: cp FOR ROADS BUILDINGS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&6to7: Gp FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER \\ IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA qrRIT PETITION .No. 3607 OF 2o23 ORDER: This Writ Petition cha-llenges that action of the respondents in withholding Rs.20,00,888/- despite making innumerable representations. Consequently, petitioner seeks a direction to release the said amount with interest at 24oh per annum from the date the amount fell due. Petitioner, it is stated, had successfully and

2. satisfactorily executed the works, details of works, date of completion, last date of defect liability have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, by entering into corresponding agreements, duly depositing amount torvards final security deposrt rvhich has to be returned in terms of Clause 42'3'l oi the Agreement. In terms of the above clause, the defective Iiability period of 24 months is also over, however, responcients. have been dodging the pa5rments for no reason. In fact, peritioner is stated to have submitteC urnpteen number ol representations, both oral ald written, the latest being the one clatccl 07.lO.2O22 rcquesting release of amounts, horvever, reso,:rncienLs arc nct acting upon the sarne. 1

3. This Court, by order dated 08.02.2023, recording the submission made by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings to the effect that request of petitioner for release of securitl, deposit is under process and decision wouid be taken by the authorities in a short time, directed Respondents 4 and 5 to forthwith dispose of the representation of petitioner dated 07.lO.2O22 for release of EMD final security deposit within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

4. Respondents 3,4 and 5 filed their counter stating that government had approved all the bills and payment has been made for a total amoLrnt of Rs- 19,85,655/- on 01.03.2023 as requested bv petrtioner and no outstanding dues are pending in their division.

5. In the counter and additional counter fited by the 6h respondent, ir is stated that after formation of new Districts in Telangana, securi[v deposits towards EMD of petitioner were transferred to jurisdiction of Assistant Pay and Accounts Ofhcer, Yadadri-Bhur-anag!ri Disrricr who processed the bills and kept it ready for pa].ment in IFMS module to the government for approval, aporoval u'as also receir.ed from the 7th respondent and the 2''d respondent u..ould pay the bills to petitioner_ J According Lo this respondent, as per Clause 43. 1 , petitioner is not entitled to payment of interest.

6. The 7ft respondent also filed counter stating that bills are pending for authorisaLion from the government and soon after they receive authorisation, amounts would be credited directly to petitioner. 7 - At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner IVl i s Indus Law Firm filed memo of calculation dated 1 1.12.2024 which states that during pendency of Writ Petition and in terms of interim order dated Oa.O2.2O23, respondent authorities had remitted the principal amount of Rs.2O,0O,888/-, but failed to deposit the interest amount accrued over a period of time. Hencc, he seeks a ciirection to respondents to pay the interest component. Learned counsel relies on tJle judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TAMGEDCO Ltd. u. T-I- Industries Limitedl and that of this Court in M/s Roghann-HES- Ndoagaga (JV) u. State of Telangana (W.P.No. 12825 oJ 2O23) and contends that petitioner is entitled to interest for the delayed pa!'ment. 8 Evidentll,, Clause 43 of the Agreement deals with 'I ntc resI on Money due to the contractor'. It specifies, 'No ' (lo t;r i s(( sait 4 omission bg the Exeantiue Engineer or the Sub-diuisional Officer to pay tLrc amount due upon certificates shall uitiate or make uoid the contract, nor shall the contractor be entitled to interest upon anA Worontee fund or pagments in arreor, nor on anA balance uhich mag, on the fina! settlement of his accounts, found to be due to him'. The said clause clearly says that contractor is not entitled to interest on anv payments in arrear nor on any balance which are found to be due.

9. If the contraci contains specihc clause which expressly bars payment of lr-rterest, then, it is not open for thb. Court to grant pendenf lire interest. This decision is supported by the- judgment in Union o.f lndia u. Manraj Dnterprise*, relied on by the learned <-'ounsel for respondents. Here, it is also to be remembered that a partv to a contracr is only legally- bound to fulfii the specific dur.ies anci re sponsibilities explicitly outlined within the r,l'ritten terms and conditions of the agreement and cannot be held iiable for anything outside of those stated paramet€rrst essentialli', thc Court lvili interpret the contract strictiy based c,r'l lhe agreeC-upon terms and will not impose additional obligaiions not cleariy defined in the contract. 'goz:1: scc t.r r ) 10, rn the light of rhe same, the judgments relied on by learned counsel lor petitioner, in somewhat different set of facts and circumstances, are of no help to the case on hand. This Court, therefore, of the considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled to claim interest on the Earnest Money Deposit, hence, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. The Writ Petirion is accordingly, dismissed. No Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-V.KAVITHA SISTANT REGISTRAR SECT]ON OFFICER To,

1. One CC to M/S INDUS LAW FIRM' Advocate [O 2. Two CCs to GP FOR ROADS BUILD INGS ,High Court for the State of 3. Two CC erabad [OUTI OR FINANCE AND PLANNING, High Court for the State of erabad [OUT] Telang ana at HYd StO GPF Telangana' at HYd I

4. Two CD CoPies BM GJP a{v HIGH COURT DATED: 1 2 10212025 ORDER WP.No.3607 of 2023 i ,4,, c'.- ,:i ,9 2ij i :il25 i',i .;.'.)' O5.5oarr . r(--i i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @*-#