WA/286/2008 of State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs C.Anil Babu on 30 December 2021

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep by its Spl. Chief Secretary to GovernmentTransport, Road & Buildings (B.l)Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh,Secratariat, Hyderabad.Transport, Road & Buildings (B.l)Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh,Secratariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Engineer-in-Chief,, R & B, A & E.A.P. Government of Andhra Pradesh,Erram-manzil, Hyderabad.Erram-manzil, Hyderabad.

3. The Superintending Engineer, R&B,, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam Distrlct.

4. rhe Executive Ensineer,, R & 8., Srikaku,rr, ll$[fffl,PJiArl"",;oro.*rs .r ro 4ll$[fffl,PJiArl"",;oro.*rs .r ro 4

AND

1C.Anil Babu, S/o Venkatramaiah Class-l Contractor, 40-7-15A, MogalralpuramRoad, Labbipet,Vijayawada-S2O 010. Rep by his GPA VaddeRameshChandraChowdary S/o VaddeChowdaryRoad, Labbipet,Vijayawada-S2O 010. Rep by his GPA VaddeRameshChandraChowdary S/o VaddeChowdary

....RESPONDENTM/RIT PETITIONER2National Academy of Construction, repby director,, General Sri R.C. Simha S/otM.B.sri VAstava R/o c/o Pionner House, 6-3-653_*SilgiSf"EI9B,,$38$n for the Appellants: the Appellants: Appellants: GP FOR FOR ROADS & BUILDINGSBUILDINGS"".,tM.B.sri VAstava R/o c/o Pionner House, 6-3-653_*SilgiSf"EI9B,,$38$n for the Appellants: the Appellants: Appellants: GP FOR FOR ROADS & BUILDINGSBUILDINGS""., Counsel for the Appellants: the Appellants: Appellants: GP FOR FOR ROADS & BUILDINGSBUILDINGS

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI K. SITA RAM

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE [SATI][SH ][CHANDRA ][S}I,IRMA]AND

THI HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE [N. ][TUKARAMJI]

WRIT APPEAL No.286 of 2OO8

JUDGMENT: {Pe the Hon'ble the Chief [Justice ][Satish ][Chandra ][Sharma)]

The pres ent writ appeal has been [fiIed ][by ][the ][State]Government [.reing ]aggrieved by a [common ][order ][dated]19.O7.2005 p,tssed in W.P.No.23806 of [2O0O ][and batch.]The fact, r of the case revea-l that the [writ ][petitioners,]who are r:gistered contractors with [the ][State]Government and who were carrying on [cotrstruction]activities on i Lccount of various agreements [executted ][by]the State Gc vernment, came up before this [Court ][by]fiiing writ pet tions challenging the legaiity and [va-lidity ][of]G.O.Ms.No.92, Transport, Roads and Buildings [(B.I)]Department,, lated 19.05. 1998.

The afo:esaid Office Memorandum directed [the]Engineer-in-( hief (R&B) (A&E) to issue [necessary]instructions o a1l concerned to ensure that 0.25% [of]gross arnour: I of bills payable to the contractors iscollected ald is remitted to the Institute of ConstructionTechnologrf India at Hyderabad for meeting theexpenditure rnd running the Institute. The learnedSingle Judge after hearing the parties at length, has quashed the a-foresaid Government Order, as the StateGovernment has failed to place the source of power whichempowers the State Government to issue such aGovernment Order. The relevant portion of the orderpassed by the learned Single Judge1S reproducedASunder:-

"Evidently, G.O.Ms.No.92 Transport, Road andBuildings (B.I) Department dated 19.05.1998 is issuedby the Government permitting the Executive Engineersto conclude the supplementai agreements with thecontractors for works under execution and to beentrusted in future basing on the request of BuildersAssociation of India to deduct O.25o/o of the grossamount of bi1ls and to remit the same to the Academy.The Engineer-in-Chief, in unequivocal words admittedthat neither the deduction ol O.25o/o from the grossbi1ls nor incorporation of such a clause in theagreement, is traceable to any provision of law andsuch a deduction cannot be made part of the contract.In such circumstances, when the Government has nopower or authority, the impugned G.O. cannot sustain.The contention of the learned counsel for the Academyi.e., the impleaded respondent that having agreed forsuch deduction, are now estopped from contendingthat such a deduction is not legal, cannot becountenanced for more than one reason. Firstly, asobserved earlier such a deduction is not traceable toany law for the time being in force and secondlyperhaps the members of the Academy might haveagreed for such a resolution to avoid confrontationwith the Association. Therefore, this by itself does nottake away the rights of the petitioners to challenge theimpugned order, more particularly when the said G.O.,is issued without any statutory authority.

\

Conseq rently, the impugned is liable to be set asideand is ;.ccordingly set aside and the writ petitions areallowed This order does not, however, preclude theNationa Academy of Construction, Hyderabad, forcollectir g the contributions made voluntarily by theMembet s, as it has to meet expenses for the dav to dayactivitie ; and management.and is ;.ccordingly set aside and the writ petitions areallowed This order does not, however, preclude theNationa Academy of Construction, Hyderabad, forcollectir g the contributions made voluntarily by theMembet s, as it has to meet expenses for the dav to dayactivitie ; and management.

TI e writ petitions are accordingly allowed. Noorder as to costs in any of the writ petitions.,,order as to costs in any of the writ petitions.,, In the (:onsidered opinion of this Court, a contractorcannot be fr rrced to pay for construction of Institute ofConstructior Technologr of India at Hyderabad, If theState Goverr.ment wants to construct some building forthe State Gc rernment, the funds a-re required to be paidby the State Exchequer and not by private individua_ls,that too ir the absence of arry statutory powerempowering the State Government to do so. In thepresent case. there is no statutory provision oflaw whichempowers th: State Government to issue such kind ofGovernment )rder and direct a private person to pay forconstruction of a building for the State Government.Therefore, as the Government Order was issued withoutany statutor) authority, the same has rightiy been setaside by the I earned Single Judge. This Court also doesnot find any l eason to interfere with the order passed bythe learned Si egle Judge.

\

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed" Themiscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall standclosed. There shall be no order as to costs.

SD/.CH.VEN KATESWARU LUDEPUW REGISTRARG,SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,

1 . Two CCs to GP For Roads & Buildings, High Court for the State of Telangana.touTl2. One CC to Sri K Sita Ram Advocate [OPUC]3. Two CD Copies4. One Spare Copy MBCNPJ

q

,tt'@

DATED: 3011212021

1[t1t ][S ][i4][ r,{:]oor1)oo03 [tEB ][2022]'1, JUDGMENTWA.No.286 of 2008

DISMISSING THE [WRIT ][APPEAL]WITHOUT COSTS