High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The State of Telangana, Rep' qy its Principal Secretary' lrrigation and CAD Oe-pa-rtm Jni, Secretiriat' Hyderabad' The Chief Engineer, Jalasoudha, Erramanzil' Hyderabad The Superintendent Engineer, lrrigation Circle' Warangal The Executive Engineer, Warangal Circle' Nakkalagutta' Hanamkonda' 5. The Deputy Executive Engineer' Warangal Circle' Nakkalagufta' J 4 Hanamkonda. ...RESPONDENTS

PetitionunderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the respondent authorities in not consldering the representation of the petitioner for consideration of respective SSRratesfortheworkscarriedatvariousintervalsoftimeasbeingarbitrary' illegal and against the principles of natural justice and apart violative of Article 14 and 19 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation and dispose of the same within the specified period of time by duly following the due process of law' lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unc e r Siection 151 CPC praying that in ther cirt;u mr,;tances stated in the affidavit frleC rr support of the petition, the High Court tnay be pleased to direct the respc,n *:nt authorities to take necessary steps for crrnsidering the representation sut,nriltr:d by the petitioner, pending disposal of the tr'y'rtt Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L.ARAVIND REDDY Counsel for the R,eripc'ndents: GP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA Dt;lV The Court made tlle following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC E c.v.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16549 of2025 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not considering the representation of the petitioner for implementation of respective Standard Schedule Rates (SSR) for the works carried at various intervals of time, as illegal and arbitrary ald for other appropriate reliefs. It is stated that the petitioner herein is a registered special class contractor qualified for undertaking various works pertaining to the projects of the IrrigaLion and Command Area Development Department' It is further stated that the petitioner has been awarded a contract for construction of check dams across Akeru River near Thallada Village, Parvathipuram Mandal, Warangal District and subseqtently an agreement vide LS AB NO.29 /2OO9-IO dated 03.08.2O09 has been executed between respondent No.3 and the petitioner for an estimated value of Rs.40,96,60O/- and the agreement was concluded @16.12% less on EVC i.e., Rs.34,36,228'O8 ps' It is further stated that thc subject work could not be completed during the relevant point of time in terms of the agreement and it was delayed, as the designs and drawings were not approved and no 2 FI work front 1\as provided by respondent No.3. it is f.rrth er stated that tt e O tuernment has issued G.O.MS.No.1z'6 1 & CAD (Reforms) -),r,to.,-"r'r, dated 08.10.2015 wherein it l:as been decided t I I []orv price escaiation for the works rv]rich suffered .delay drrc t(, c cpartment latches. The grievance of the fretitioner is that r'r,r'rr tlLough it submitted a representation in terr:rs oI the said G.O. cn the file of the respondents and even thouglr several other s inri Ia r situated contractors urere extencl r:d t he said benefit, so f:rr thc representation of the petitior:er lLas rot been considere,l [,rr implementation of the relovan t Sitanclard Schedule R:.tc s for the sr-rl;ect work. Mr. L lrravind RedCy, learned counsel frrr the p::titioner vehemellt y contends that despite thc fact that the w,r:-k \vas d.elayed c L {) to departmental latches; the C over-nm:rn t has issucd il.ti.l,ls.lrlo_ 1461 & CAD (Reforms) Departmer,t clated

08.10.2O15 !tereby allorving pricc escalation for thr: lr,orks which ;u tle r r cl delays due to departmental la tclrcs; and sinilarly si lr trrtcd contractors have been extende.d t re said benefits, t rr: r:titioner's representation has not lle er cot Lsidered by the rts.p I ndents, wirich action on their par t n ot only arnounts to discrimination and bu,_t also violation ol Articles 14 and 19 cf .l-r-. Ocnstitution of India. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and Perused the l'ecord' "*t"rr'd AsitisStatedthatthepetitiorrerhasalreadySubmitteda representation on the hle of the respondent authorities seeking the benehts as were extended to other similarly situated contractors vide G'O'Rt'N o'1791 and CAD (MI-A2) dated 25.08.2O2O, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in terms cf G'O'Ms'No' 1461 & CAD (Reforms) Department dated 08' 10'2015' if the petitioner fulhls the eiigibility critcria for implementing the relevant Standard Schedule Rates for the subject work' and pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks frorrl the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner' The writ petition is accordingl'v disposed of' Pending miscellaneous applications' if any' shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs' //TRUE COPY" '! sDr'A .V.S. RASAD DEPUTY RE ISTRAR SECT NO FFICER and cAD Department' secretariat' ",:il!3:31r,:""?'f:il'*"1{risation Iffi The Chief Engineer' Jalasoudha' Erramanzil' Hyderabad The Superintendent Engineer' lrrigation Circle' Warangal The Executive Engineer' *''"*'' Circle' Nakkalagutta' Hanamkonda' The Deputy Executive Engln""'' Warangal Circle' Nakkalagutta' Hanamkonda : l To, I

3. 4 (

6. One CC to {itil t.ARAVIND REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs tc (iF' FOR lRRl AND COTMM AREA DEV, High Cot rt for the State of Telangan a zr1 lyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copi:-. BSR BS ,/ \ 4 HIGH COIJR,I' DATED:1714612025 ORDER op.-iHE 51, ( ,s 04 2 7 ,lur ltl:n / /'- !J WP.No.1654!l of 2025 q *1 ,, C o \ t I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS //4t &7/0 /n 5