High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. 3

5. o. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. M/s. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, rep. by its Managing Director, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. The Chief General Manager (Engg) Project Construction Circle - ll (PCC-ll), HMWS and SB, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 38. The General Manager, Project Division-lll, HMWS and SB, D.D. Colony Adikmet Division, Hyderabad. The Director (Finance), HMWS and SB, Khairtabad, Hyderabad - 500 004. The Director (Projects) HMSW and SB, Khairtabad, Hyderabad - 500 004 ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the natlire of WRIT of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in withholding an amount of Rs. 9,29,449/- towards 1 o/o labour cess from final bill without adding for the work referred to in the agreement No. 67i CGIME / PCC -ll /JNNURM /lnlet-Out-Distn/ 3ML GLSR-Patigadda /2008-09 dated 12.O3.2009 as arbitrary, unconstitutiona l, illegal, without jurisdiction, in violation of terms of agreement, contrary to memo dated 08.06.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to release the amoL nt of Rs. 9,29,4491- 1 Yo labour cess amounts withheld from final bill. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition unc er Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file,1 in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respon,jents herein to refund to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 9,29,449t- deductt:d towards 1% labour cess from the final bill in respect of Agreement No. 6TrCGME/PCC-ll/JNNURI\//lnlet Out-Distn/3ML GLSR Patigadda/ 2008-09 dated 1 2.03.2009. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SHASHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 6: SRI A.VEERESH KUMAR, SC FOR HMWS & SB The Court made thr) following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.9482 of 2OL9 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "To declare tlrc action of the respondents tn withholding an amount o/Rs. 9,29,449/ - towards 1 % labour cess from final bill without adding for the work referred to in the agreement No.67/ CGME/ PCC-II/JNNURM/ Inlet-Out-Distn/ 3ML GISR- Patigadda/2008-09 dated 12.03.2009, as illegal and arbitrary, as illegal and arbitrary."

2. Heard Sri P. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Veeresh Kumar, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.3 has invited e-tender dated 24-IO.2OO8 from eligible contractors for "providing inlet, outlet and distribution system for 3.O ML capacity new GLSR at Patigadda in Prakashnagar Zone"; that petitioner participated in the said bidding and became successful bidder; that an agreement dated

12.O3.2OO9, was entered for value of work of Rs.l.9,72,37,580.6O ps for part-l and Rs.19,38,182-76 for part-ll and Rs.1,58,02,359.69 for part-III. He further submitted that petitioner has raised bills from time to time and completed the contract. In the meanwhile, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a memo No.636/Reforms-Al I2OOB dated 08.06.20 11 for I i j , 2 Emproyrnent paym(.nt of labour ces of Burrding and othe and cornprianc )r construction and condifions of Servr", "the Acl , 7996') and the Rures *ra. ,t towards labour cess with.,,,, ,_^] . contract. He would ,r.r,'n"'t of statutory provisions oto".s (Reguration Act)' lggo (for short rere under. Accordingly, sum of Rs.I9,92,1tg/_ including the said amount in the her subrnit that j o/o labour cess can be deducted r,,ly if the same is incrudeo ," j he contract. in the present case, whire e-tender, there is no provision rnade for Iabour cess contract. Tt erefore, o.or", not included in the '" rquuur cess is iflegal and contrary to :he terrns of the ,dr^^ court to arrow this writ ;ff";..::' thus, praved this rerease an amount of Rs.e,2 s,+4e/-to 4. He woujd further submrt that erstwh Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad ,,,r-')'.crstwhile uide order: datr w.p.Nos. lrz6g of 2oogand bi in w.p.No.6oe0 or 2ott.rl::^'."."0 e same was als lion of I % Iaboro the ,.rH::pondents High court of "rro ,'t"'ing =d 22.1O.2OO9 However, 11'o4'2o12' o'otr dated 11.o4.2o12 held that not Lowards Iabour cess refunding was unsustain entitred for the the' e:mount arread Y collected towa held that the pefitioners able and further ,.,^-.1* "uia r.,],,_:":,tt ;il.. ::I=;' 2r).o9 . 2o2., 0,.' ;; ""n'r subrni"e *o' I 6 I s6 * ro|lo'n^::'T.|j:: ected the respondents therein / !Ul|rp-__--:-r<: I ! I ) to verify the bills of the petitioners therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case, labour cess was not included in e-tender and therefore, respondents cannot deduct the amount towards labour cess.

5. Learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 6 would submit that the petitioner paid final bills and deducted I o/o labour cess in view of the Act, 1996 and memo No.636/Reforms-A I I 2OO8 dated 08.06.20 1 1.

6. Admittedly, the e-tender was issued on 24.10.2008 which \ is prior to memo dated 08.06.2011, by which the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh decided to impose labour cess in the State. However, as on the date of settlement of final bill, the above act came into force and in view of proceedings dated 08.06.2011, respondents deducted the 1 % labour cess. The order dated 2O.O9.2O23 in W.P.No.16156 of 2O2O and batch, wherein the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that if the corresponding amount is included in the estimates, the ( { respondents can deduct the amount as prescribed at the rate of I o/o labour cess and in case, respondents found that the corresponding amount is not included in the estimates, the respondents shall not take steps to deduct the amount/recover the amount from the petitioners towards labour cess. In the present case, the I o/o labour cess was not included in the 4 e-tender and contract, as the same was issued prior to the implementa,ion of the Act, 1996. Therefore, respondents are not entitled :o deduct the labour cess.

7. In ttre resurt, writ petition is ailowed and respondents are directed to r:fund a sum of Rs.9,2g,44g/- deducted towards 1 %o labour cess within two (o2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscr:llirneous petitions pending, if .fly, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY/ SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The tVanaginll Director, M/s. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Boe rd, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

3. The Chief Gerreral Manager (Engg.) Project Construction Circle - ll (PCC-Il), HMWS and SEl, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 38.' \

4. The General [Manager, Project Division-lll, HMWS and SB, D.D. Colony Adikmet Divisir>n, HYderabad.

5. The Director (F:inance), HMWS and SB, Khairtabad, Hyderabad - 500 004. 6. The Director (F'rojects) HMSW and SB, Khairtabad, Hyderabad - 500 004 7. One CC to SR P.SHASHI KIRAN, Advocate IOPUCI 8. one cc to sR A.VEERESH KUMAR, SC FOR HIVIWS & SB [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to G ) FOR MCPL ADIUN URBAN DEV, High COUTT fOT thE StAtE Of Telangana at l-lyderabad [OUT]

10.Two Copie; BSR GJP r J HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012025 ORDER WP.No.9482 of 2019 ) ) t B E r,r0u n6 * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS b Irl \{