High Court · 2025

M/s Surya cons Private Limited, (formerry known as [vl/s surya constructions) having it-s re-gd. office at Flat.No..lO^2, irt ftoor, Sii lMahaiakahmi Nid;;: Plot No.28 _Sitpa Hilts, Near Hitex_Gate, fryOeriOia _ 500 084, ;ep. l;ii; Managing. Director, trrl.srinivasa Rao, of-Sii fU.SrtyinurrlrinJ,nyJ 'Hyderabad. 'sori AND ...PETITIONER 1 The state of relanoana. Represented by its principar secretary, rrrigation and CAD Department, Secretaridt Buldi;gs,'HF;;;b;5. - The Chief Engineer (Projects), lrrigation, LMD Colony, Karimnagar. Engineer, SRSP-I.F.F C. Circle 2, LMD Colony, 2 3. The Superintendent Karimnagar. 4 5 The Executive Engineer, IFFC, Division 2, Dharoor Camp, Jagtial, Karimnagar District Asst Pay & Accounts Officer, SRSp LMD Colony Karrmnagar. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or a writ more particurarry a writ in the nature of mandamus decraring the inaction of the 1st respondent i.e. principar Secretary, lrrigation CAD Department, Government of Telangana, in not approving the additional costs by the petitioner company is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the 1st respondent to pay the additional costs incurred by the petitioner for the additional items of controlled blasting and underuyater excavation after t: deducting the amount which already paid under G.O.Rt.NO.735, dafed 27-09-2008 to the petitioner for the work from KM z7.oo KM 85.00 of FFC t.A. NO: 10F 20't6(WPMP. N O:13425 O F 2016) Petition under Section '1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to rerease the bank guarantees ,submitted by the petitioner herein towards retention money for Rs.s,g2,60,000 and cash deposit of Rs 5,13,99,65'1 towards retention money and o&M, pending disposar of the writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRI HARSHAVARDHAN ABBURI Counsel.for the Respondent No.1 to 4: Gp FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.5: Gp FOR FINANCE The Court made the following: ORDER l I I L THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTIcE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.106s4 of 2016 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No. 1 in not approving the additionar costs incurred by the petitioner cornpany as illegal, arbitrary ancl to consequently direct respondent No. 1 to pay the additional costs incurred by the petitioner for the additional items of con trolled blasting and underwater excavation after deducting the amount which was already paid to the petitio'er for the work from KM 77.OO to KM 85.OO of FFC and for other appropriate reliefs. the business of It is stated that the petitioner hcrein viz., M/s.Surya Cons Private Limited (Formerly kno.*-rr as M/s. Surya Constructions) is a company, which has been engaged in execution of contract rvorks. It is further stated that the petitioner was allotted work by respondent No.3 vide Letter No'.E/FFC-1/J /DB/ A',/6ss/2oo7 /s4/M dated 10.o4.2oo. i.e., for completion of ,,Balance work of earth work excavation and F'E. including construction of cM & cD works of FFC from krn. 77.OO to km. 85.00,. It is further statecl that while entering into the said agreement, the petitioner has put forth two additional conditions i.e.; (i) controlled blasting is to be allowed l L: 2 in the reaches wherever required; and (ii) de-watering charges are to be paid extra for the standing water in the canal prism and the sarne were agreed by respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the sarne, even though it submitted several represcntations seeking reimbursement of the additional cost involved in controlled blasting and underwater excavation, the respondenls are withholding the same without any valid reasons Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears that there are disputes arising out of a contract betu,een the parties. It is settled law that writ petition is not the effective and appropriate remedy to resolve lh,e inter se disputes arising out of contracts. Be that as it may, since it is stated that additiona-l works have been completed by the petitioner in compliance with the directions issued by the respondents and the said works have alreacl._v been recorded in the measurement book and part paymei'lts were also made to the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation on the hle of the ) I ( ,, respondents seeking reimbursement of the balalcc amount within a period of two weeks from today. On filing such application, the respondents shall examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance within iaw, i.vithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application. The rvrit petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, il any, shall stand closed. There shall be no orcici: as to costs. //TRUE COPY// 'Bi'"I'iI'f 'J[tt3'Rl"J \ \ SECTION OFFICER To, CAD Department, Secretariat lrrigation and Karimnagar. e of Telangana. 1 The PrinciPal Secretary' Buildings, HYderabad, stat 2. The Chief Engineer (Projects)' lrrigation' LMD Colony' Karimnagar' 3. The Superintendent Engineer' SRSP-l'F'F'C Circle 2' LtiilD Colony' 4. The Executive Engineer' IFFC' Division 2' Dharoor Camp' Jagtial' Karimnagar 5. The Asst. Pay & Accounts Officer' SRSP LMD Colony Karimnagar' 6. One CCto SRI HARSHAVARDHAN ABBURI' Advocate IOPUC] a Two ccs to Gp FoR FTNANCE, High court for the state of rerangana at :11"ffi;:,"I 5ft:.]5:tf53.?o'* AREA DEV' Hiqh court ror the State District HYderabad [OUT] o BSR GJP Two CD CoPies tq* HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 ORDER WP.No.10654 of 2016 1( lJ C o HE STA T tr ( \ 2 6 npn zr:t, * 9e DAf {) i:: * :i' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS .{\e(