K.Babu Rao vs. The Executive Engineer

Held

The Court noted that the subject matter of the present writ petition was squarely covered by the decision in Writ Petition No. 20178 of 2022, which was disposed of on 14.07.2022. Following the precedent set in that case, the Court disposed of the present writ petition with a similar direction. The Court directed the Superintending Engineer (2nd respondent) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.05.2022 and pass appropriate orders. This consideration must include providing an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard and the final order must be communicated to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the specific contractual disputes. The operative direction is to consider the representation and pass an order after affording an opportunity.

Facts

The petitioner, a Special Class Contractor, entered into an agreement with the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 02.11.2018 for certain works. The contract period of six months expired on 01.05.2019. The petitioner claims that despite repeated requests, only a part payment was made on 14.12.2020, leaving a balance of Rs. 28,52,423/- (including Rs. 20,76,228/- for formation of shoulders and Rs. 7,76,195/- withheld amount, plus GST, sewerage charges, and NAC). The petitioner sought closure of the contract and payment of outstanding dues. However, the respondent department unilaterally extended the time for execution and directed the petitioner to continue work. The petitioner's representation for contract closure and payment was not considered, and the 1st respondent-Executive Engineer passed an order on 28.04.2022 determining the contract as per Clause 60(a), leading to forfeiture of security deposit and withheld amounts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings No.DR.Agt.No.75/2018-19/A1/72021, dated 28.04.2022, issued by the 1st respondent-Executive Engineer, are illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and the conditions of the contract, thereby warranting their setting aside? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the remission of amounts payable under Agreement No.75/2018-19, dated 02.11.2018, including the balance amount of Rs. 28,52,423/-, with reasonable interest at 18% per annum? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned proceedings were illegal and arbitrary, violating natural justice and contractual terms. They argued that the department was at fault for not releasing payments within the contract period and for unilaterally extending the contract time. The petitioner sought closure of the contract from 13.08.2020 and payment of outstanding dues. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Government Pleader submitted that the subject matter of the writ petition is squarely covered by an earlier writ petition (W.P. No. 20178 of 2022) disposed of by this Court on 14.07.2022.