The High Court · 2025

petition undei Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to settle full and final payment in respect of contract work bearing No.B/2005-06 dl. 29t4l2OO5 executed by 3rd respondent and consequently declares the action of respondent no.3 in threatening the petitioner to desist from approaching the Government by way of several representations, as high handed one unjust, contrary to law, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14, 19(1xg) and 21 of the constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under liection 151 CPC praying that in the circuntst.ances stated in the affidavit filed ir s;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners representalic,n dt.1Bl32O2O in accordance with lar,n, pending disposal of the main petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition unde' Sr:ction 1 51 CPC praying that in the circunrst:rnces stated in the affidavit filed in sr-rpport of the petition, the High Court rn ay be pleased to direct the respondent-c to fileifurnish the referred information soughr for i.e l) to Xl) in the accompanying Affidavit, in the present writ petition for effective adjudication/hea ring of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.V.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Res,pondents: GP FOI? IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELI)PMENT C.C.NO: 962OF 2020 Contempt Case Under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents herein for willfully disobedience the orderrs of the Hon'ble Court Dated 211912020 n W.P.No. 15418 of 2020. Between: L.Narsinga Rao, S/o. L Bhupathi Rao a No. 202, Kalinga Rr:sidency, Beside Hyderabad - 500 067 ged about 58 years, Occ. Oortractor r/o FIat Pet Basheerabad Police Iita tion, Kompalli, AND .,.PETITIONER Sri K.Dharma, S/o ancl age not known (Major), Occ. 9oS. gf Te_lqlgqlr, lrlgation Circte, Minoi triigation, Hyderabad-500004 Superinter dirrg Engineer V Ranga Fed,Jy, Red Hills, Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.V.HANUMANTHA RAO ..CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Reslcondents: GP FOFI IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER --7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.l 5414 oF 20.20 AND CONTEMFT CASE No.9620F 2020 COMMON ORDER: Writ Petition No. 154 18 of 2O2O under Article 226 of th.e Constitutionoflndia,ishledseekingthefollowingrelief: "....to issue an ord'er or direction more particularlg one in the i w", of mandamus directing the respondents to settle ""ii. fitlt. onrl final panlment in respect of contract utork beaing ' ;;: ;' ;d ; :;; -ar"i si + t z o o s ixecutid bs 3'd re spondent and cins"quentlg d-eclares tLrc action of respondent No'3 in tii.i*"i"g" the petitioner to desist from approaching ttrc Gouemment bg uag of seueral repre-sentations as high handed one, unjust, .oni'ory to law, iiolatiue^ of principles of^ '"Zo"ri i"Jie ind uiolatiue of Articles H' 19(1)(9) and 21 of the Constitution of India' ' "

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record'

3. It is stated that petitioner was awarded contract for formation ofMlTankacrossGangakatwaVagu,Gundlamarpally H/o.Pilligundla Village, Marpally Mandal' Ranga Reddy District vide Agreement No.8/20O5-O6 dated 29 'O4 '2O05 and he completed about 9O%o of the work, except the formation of left canal' which could not be executed due to deiay in land acquisition by the Government and thereby, the work was stopped on 31' 12'2008 It is ..-- j 'I I 2 further stzrte(l tnat the petitioner made several rcpr.c ser ltations to the authoritir:s irnd participated in a meering on 09.O2.20O9 with the respon,Cerrt NIo.3, explaining the issues but no actron ,r,as taken. It is also stated tl-rat the petitioner submitted a repres.rr ta:ion dated 15.03.2009 to :116 6,rr..nment. Thereafter, the responrlent No. 1 vide letter dat:rl 29 .O4 .20 1 I , asked the petitioner. wh e thr :r he was willing to cc,mple te the remaining work. The petitioner rr sponded on 16.o5.2o11 st:srsi69 necessary documents to proce( d, but no response was r<:r.t.ived. Thereafter, on 19.10.201t, resp( ncient No.l issued a memo tt'tminating the contract. The petitioner sr:t.mirted a representation dated 11.i1.2011 requestlng pre-clost rre of the contract and cleartnce of pending bills. Respondents latr:r :ssued a Ietter dated 23.O1;2012 proposing a settlement oI Rs 7,4,),OO0/_, which ttre periti()ner rejected. It is further stated that the ;er itioners submitted several representations to the respondents r_ec,uesting final measurements ancl settlement. On I1..O2.2O2O, the rr:s;:ondent No.3 reiterated th;rt the contract was closed towards full ar d final settlement at Rs.7,a3,0OO. It is also stated that the petiti,rn,:r gzrve reply on 18.03.2l2() rejecting the same and once agarn requested for final site measlrrements and settlement as per contra,tt terms. Stating that no tr:t;on has been hken by the respon<lt nt s, the petitioner filed tht v.r.it petition. J 4 On 21.O9.2O2O, when the writ petition came up for hearing' this Court passed the following order: "l,eamed, Gouemment PLeader for lrrigation & .CAD seeks four weeks time Jor filing counter. Post on 14.10.2020. In the mearutthi[e, the resopndnet No'3 shalt consider the representation, dated 04.01-2020 submitted bA tLLe petitioner' anri pass appropiate ord-ers thereon, strictty in accordance uith the procedure d bg Law. A copy of the order be communicated to tFE i-.iiiii", i"a'"lso be ptacedZn record before this Court ba the nert darc ".iobii"n of hearing."

5. Alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order' dated 21.O}.2O2O passed by this Court in W P'No'15418 of 2O2O' t}:,.e petitioner has hled Contempt Case No 962 of 2O2O '

6. The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & CAD has produced the copy of letter vide No'SE/lClRRD/DSE/DEE-ll/TS-5/ Gangakatwa/ D EE- I I / TS - 5 / Gan gakatwa Y agu I 2O2O -2 1 I 24 34 dated 21.O1.2021addressed by the respondent No'3 to the petitioner' In the dforesaid letter d,ated 2l OI '2021, it is stated that the 7 . petitioner vide letter dated 18.01'20 12 requested the respondent No.3 to delete the balance work from the contract purview and close the contract duly releasing the withheld amounts and deposits without imposing any penalties and also informed that he will not claim any extra amount for the work in future' It was further stated in the letter that based on the petitioner's representation dated \ .J 4 ^

18.01.2012, a r.i,port was sent to the Government bv the Chief Engineer, n{inr>r rrrigation, Hyderabad vide retter crate<i 24-or_2or2 requesting l.o isst e necessary instructions for closing the vrork duly making the ne:essary payments and lor submission ol :slimate for balance wor.ks 1..-re Government vide Memo No.627li l4l T2/2OOg dated 3O-04-2 (, 1,.2 authoriz-ed the Chiel Engineer, Minor )rr:gation to close the Con _rar:t of the petitioner in respect of- tl_ e u,ork in question dr-r]y 1 rzr.ying Rs. 7,43,000/ _ (which includes Rs. 4,r i3,000/ _ towards withht ld quantity and Rs.2,gO,O00/_ tou,ards rr,lease of I'-'S D) as ful arrd irnar settrement of the contract. It was s[erted that the subject r.r,orl< .,r as closed to the extent of work clone and penalty waived off vicle I ernrr No. Str/IC/RR Lr.No. DEE_IIITS_4 / ()irn1 1aka twa Vagu/797, date,i 07.05_201S. It is further stated in thr: letter that as per the Mr:mo ,lated 3O.O4.2O12 issued by the Govcrrm rnt, the fi nal bill for an i..rnount of Rs.7,43,000/_ towards lull ar,d final settlement was submitted to the pay and Accounts Offi<:e (t:AO) by the Executive Engineer, IB Division, Vikarabad

8. The scope of interference ln contractual matters a.rd the principles govt:rning the same have been illustrated by th,: tton,ble Supreme Court jn ir catena of decisions from time to lirne .lh have been summ(,d trp in a recent decision in Silppi Constructions 5 Contrdctors Vs. (Jnion of India and anotherr, wherein it was held as follows :- - "rrr"oliy loathe to interfere in contractual motters .unless "19. This Court being the guardian of fundomentqt nght-s is dutg- bound to-int"r1en uhen tlire is irbitranneii' iruotionatitg, mala ftdes and bias' Hon-,eier, this Court in oll the aJoresaid decisions has coutioned time ;;; ,g";" that courts should exircise a lot ol restraint ttthiLe exercising tii, i"i.r" of judicial reuieu.t in contractual or commercial matters Thts a cLear- Ciii i, rrlt case of arbitTainess or mali ldes or bias or. irrationalitg is made out' On" *uit remember that bdag manA public sector undertakings ,""rp.t tuith the priuate industry' The contracts ente.red into betueen - piii"" ai not subject io scruting under urit juisdiction' No iirLt zr"it, ti* bod.ies uthich are state uithin tLrc meani4g of Articte 12 of the Corsiiartion are bound to cict fairLA and are amenabLe b the wit iurisd.iction of supeior courts but ihis discret{onary pouer must be ""r.ili"a uiih a'grear deal of reslroint and coution' TIE courls must ,"ili". ttni, Iimititiotts ,nd ihe houoc which needless interference in commerciolfilrrtterscancause.Incontractsinuoluingtechnicalissuesth'e courts should be euen more reluctont because most of us in Judges' robes do not houe the necessary expertise to adjudicctte upon technical iori. t.gona our domain. As laid-douLn in the judgments cited aboue the courts slwuld' not use a magnifging glass tuhite scanning the tenders ina iof. euery small mittat.e ippeai tike o big blunder' In fact' the ,ourt" iurt giie "fair ptag in thi ioints' to ttle gouernm.ent and public sector undeiakings in matters of cintract Courts must also not interfere -i.r"- iin intelrference u''itt cause unnecessary toss to the public "r*r"i"" exchequer. 2O. The essence of the laut laid doutn tn the iudgments referred to aboue of iestraint and caution; the need' for ouenuhelming public it th" tiierest n justifg judicial interuention in matters of antract inuolutng the ,tot" iroti^"itiities; the courts should giue utag to the optnion of the tne aeiston is totatla arbitrary or unreasonoble; the court ;;;;-;;i;r, ii." not sit like q court of opp"d ou"' the oppropriate oltthoitg; the ctturt musl realise that the ouiiontg Jloating the tender is the best judge ofii, ,"quir"^"nts and, thereforJ, the court's interkrence shnuld be knimot. Tle outhoritg u-thich Jloats the controct or tender' and has - doanmeis is the best iudge o-s to tnu the iuthored th.e tender .ntt haue to be interpreted-' If tu)o interpretations are possible then io* lilnlerpr"tatan of the atttlar ml st be aciepted The courts utilL onlg i^t"i"ri t preueit arbitroriness, inotionalitg' bias' mala fides or 'piir.itg. uirtn tni. approach in mind rae shalt deal tttith the present case." In the instant case, the petitioner himself had requested for 9. pre-closure of the contra ct tn 2Ol2 and agreed not to claim any t I ' (2020) 16 scc 4E9 6 a) further amolutt The Government, based on his request, approved closure of the t:ontract by paying Rs.7,43,000/_ as hrll and final settlement. The 1>etitioner,s later demand for furlher 1ra1 ments or measurements lzicks any legal basis. As held by r.16 Hon,ble Supreme C.rurt, j Lrclicial interference in contractua I mill Let..s should be exercised v.,ittL great restraint and only in cases rf manifest illegaliS or gross arbitrariness This Court finds I ro such crrcumsLances I r: the present case warranting in lerferr:n< re under ArLicIe 226.f rrrc: S0nstitution of India. This writ petition is crevoid of merits anrI th t: same is liable to be dismissed

10. Accordinglv. this Writ petition is dismissed the Contempr. Citse is closed. Con se,luently, As a se,qur:1. the miscellaneous petitions pending, if ary, stand closecl. No o.-rler as to costs. //TRUE COPYII \\ , i \i .r Sd ,\ 1DEPUN, /- N. SRIHARI REGISTRAR SE()TI ON OFFICER One CC to SRt M.',/.HANUMANTHA RAO, AdvocatY. IOPUC] Two ccs to Gr) F.r rrrioation. and command Area Deveroprrent. High court forthe State or Tr,l:ngaia. tolrn- -- " To, 1 2

3. Two CD Copies BSK MP cr\k HIGH COUR]- DATED:281Oit12025 COMMON ORDER WP.No.15418 of 2020 & C.C.No.962 of 2020 l qt6 S l'A7 € t J () 2 1 trAY 2025 {' , .i S- / )/ :.r '\:' . .,-: 1'Cc C,] DISMISSING HE WRIT PETITION & CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COISTS ot( >r,Lo5lt5 ffiiuar.r