Orihe High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to release the payment certified by the Respondent No. 4 on or- 07 -2020 vide page 10 of the Departmental Measurement Book No. 2612019-20 for the gross amount of Rs. 56,61,076/-, deductions of Rs 3,46,854/- and net payment of Rs. 53,14,2221- along with the interest @ l Byo from the date of certificaiio; untit the date of realization of the amount. I counsel for the Apoeilant: sRr K.R KAUSHAL KARAN (pARTy rAI pERSoN) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAt.l DEV counsel for the Res;pondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI p.RADHlvE REDDy sc FoR HMRL The Court made the, following: JUDGMENT I I r n TTTB HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSttY AND TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT APPEAL.No.342 ot2024 JIJDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Kos hy) Heard Mr. K.R.Kaushal Karan, party-in-person representing the appellant-M/s V.K.A. Constructions and Mr. P.Radhive Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2. The present is a Writ Appeal preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 14.1 1.2023 passed in W.P.No.30810 of 2023, wherein, the leamed Single Bench has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellantipetitioner seeking for releasing of the payment for the work executed by the petitioner with the respondents.

3. The claim of the petitioner was based on the certification done by the respondents in the measurement book

4. The leamed Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Director of Agriculture 2 PSI(,J 6ir RRIV,J W.A.No.342 of 2024 v. M.V.Ramar:handranl and in the case of Godavarikani Sugar Mills v.'I'he State of Maharashtra', has dismissed W.P.No.308l0 of 2023 perrritting the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities by srrbmitting explanation to the letter dated 07.02.2022 and the respondent authorities were directed to consider tt e same and take furlher action. The leamed Single Judge was als(, of the view that in terms of the agreement entered into betwt:en the parties, any dir;;rute exceeding Rs.50,000/- has to be adjuCicated upon by approrching the Civil Coufi concemed. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the instant writ app,:al has becn flted.

5. The cont:ntion of the party-in-person is that there is a clear cerliilcation fol the work done by the officers of the respondent deparlment itselL ln addition, the work was also inspecteC by a team of cornmi lee from the department of civil engineerin6 under the Osmania UrLiversity, who had inspected the site and subniitted a ' t taNulscloszq/202 3. civil Appeal No.176 0f 2023 date d 77.03.2023 ' (zorr) z scc a:g 3 PSI(.J & RR]V,J W.A.No.342 o.f 2024 report on 31.03.2021 proving the execution of the work being satisfied. In the light ofthe same, the party-in-person relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Gas Authority of India Ltd v. M/s lndian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. & Ors., in Civil Appeal Nos.3504-3505 of 2010 decided on 08.02.2023 contended that there does not seem to be any dispute on the work having been executed by the petitioner and the same having been not satisfied. Thus, the claim of the petitioner, particularly in the teeth of the certification done by the officers of the Municipal Depa(ment becomes admitted dues and since it is admitted dues, the same could not be granted invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly since there is no dispute of the petitioner having not executed the said work and not being entitled for the payment for the work so executed.

6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the record, the admitted factual matrix of awarding of the work to the petitioner and the petitioner having executed the 4 PSIr,..,' & R.RN,J W.A.No.34:,2 of 2024 said work, v'hat is in dispute is to the aspect as to whether the petitioner has adhered himself to the conditions so mentioled in the agreemcnt errlered into between the parties for the exe ;ution of the said rvork. At the first instance, the appellant was not in a position to st ow the original invoices of the purchase of bitumen, as the require rnent of the original bill is mandatory in tenns of the Clause 102 b (i) (ii)

7. Though the pafty-in-person/appellant submits that thb bill invoices had rr fact been obtained and submitted to the del,artment, there does nct seem to be any enjolment of the original having been submittecl. Ttre appellant submits that he has a seconc copy of the same wh i,:h lre has already submitted to the Dep artrnent. Another aspe()r. which needs to be appreciated at this jur rcture is that from the pleadings and the documents available on record, there appears to be couple of correspondences made by the respondent au lorities to the petitioner in respect of certair defects which werc fouLnd in the course of the inspection, pertainirrg to the work executec by the petitioner. The correspondences lnad,r in this (- 5 PSK,J&RR^I,J W.A.No.342 of 2O24 regard are that of 26.03.2021,, 06.01.2021, 12.01.2022 and lastly

07.02.2022.

8. A plain reading of the contents of these four correspondences also forces this Bench to draw an inference that the claim raised by the petitioner cannot be said to be admitted dues or the payment to have been withheld without any reasons. The documents along with the petition and the agreement entered into between the parties would clearly indicate that certain due formalities have to be completed before the respondent authorities could process the bill for releasing of payment. It appears that it is these formalities whatever be the compelling circumstances then prevailing that seems to have left unfulfilled by the petitioner. [n the absence of completion of the formalities as is required, we are of the considered opinion that ordering for releasing of the payment for the work executed by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution of India would not be sustainable.

9. Learned Single Bench itself has reseryed the right of the appeltant to approach the respondent authorities by ventilating his 6 PSIr,.r'&RRN,J W.A.No.34'2 of 2O24 r grievances by responding to the last notice dated 07.02.2022 and, there was ah o a further direction to the respondent auth orities to consider suct response that the petitioner makes, so far as his claim is concemed

10. Given he said view taken by the learned Single Berrch, rnore particularly, ,rcnsidering the fact that the claim of the ,rppellant arises out of pure contractual obligation, we are of the cr',nsidered opinion that ;r writ petition under Article 226 of the Corrstitution of India fbr rcdressal of civil liability may not be surrtainable. Thus, reservirr,3 tlie [iberty granted to the appellant by thr: leamed Single Bench the present Writ Appeal accordingly stands lisposed of.

11. At this juncture, we would only niake a further obr;ervation that the libert.z granted to the appellant to approach the respondent authorities pursiuant to the corespondence dated 0'7.02.2A22 would not preclude him fiom availing other remedies as is avarlable to him in tenns ol the agreement entered into between the panies. The non-entertainnr,:nt of the writ petition and the present wri : appeal 7 PSI(,J & R,RJV,J W.A.No.342 of 2O24 should not come in the way of the respondent authorities in enterlaining the claim of the petitioner. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-I. NAGALAKSHMI D P UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The PrinciP al Secretary' MuniciPa I Administration and Urban DeveloPment Department , Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad BegumPet' Hvd erabad - 500016' Limited, RasoolPura, BegumPet, HYd erabad - 500016.

2. The Managtng Director, Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited' Rasoolpura' 3. The SPe cial Projects Officer / SuPe rintending Engineer, HYderabad Metro Rail 4. The Projects Officer / Executive Engineer, Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited' 5. The Sub Divisional Officer / DePutY Executive Engineer, HYderabad Metro Rail Limited , RasoolPura, BegumPe Hyderabad - 500016. 6. One CC to SRI P RADHIVE REDDY SC FOR HMRL [OPUC] 7. 00One CC to SRI X'n fnUSrfnf- KARAN (PARTY lN PERSON) Advocate RasoolP ura, BegumP et, HYderabad - 500016 t loPUCl Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Telangana. [OUT] High Court for the State of Two CD CoPies 8 o KKS GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2210112025 JUDGMENT WA.No.342 ol 2024 i-iL S ie \1..- 1 ( )\' i. ) ) ) 22 APH zffi o .c:j pnT Clri-!'\ C \ I .2, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ./3 /.3 /r/+,zas