Telangana High Court
WP/6529/2001 of C.Raghava Reddy Vs The Suprintending Engineer, on 26 December 2007
G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 6529 of 2001 DATED: 26-12-2007 Between: 1. C. Raghava Reddy ……………. Petitioner and 1. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation & Command Area Development Department, Irrigation Circle, Nizamabad and another. ……….
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU
W.P.No. 6529 of 2001
DATED: 26-12-2007
Between:
1. C. Raghava Reddy
……………. Petitioner
and
1. The Superintending Engineer,Irrigation & Command Area Development Department,Irrigation Circle, Nizamabad and another.
………. Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
THE HON’BE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULUW.P.No. 6529 of 2001
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare theaction of the respondents in withholding a sum of Rs.3,57,000/-payable to him relating to the successful execution of the two works asillegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner is a Contractor. He was initially entrusted withtwo works. At the time of entrustment of works, he made the EMD andsecurity deposit. He has successfully completed the works and he isentitled for the refund of the EMD. Subsequently, he was entrustedwith third work and the said work is pending. As the petitioner couldnot complete it, the work was entrusted to the third party and it wasalso completed. On account of non-execution of the third work by thepetitioner, the respondents stopped the EMD in the first two works.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is aseparate security deposit in respect of the third work and since the firsttwo works are distinct from the third work, the respondents are notsupposed to withhold the security deposit, therefore, the petitioner isentitled to get the amount refunded.
There is no representation for the respondents.
In the light of the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel,respondents are directed to examine whether there are any works dueto be executed in respect of the first works and in the event of closingthe accounts of the first works, they are directed to refund the EMD andsecurity deposit relating to those works to the petitioner within twomonths from the date of this order. If any work accounts relating to thefirst works are not settled, necessary information may be sent to thepetitioner for the settlement of those accounts.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
__________________
Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J
Date:26-12-2007
YCR