WP/20197/2015 of M/s. V. K. A. Constructions, Vs State of Telangana, on 10 February 2026

ORDER

Heard Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, Iearned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.Veda Vidya Nath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, learned Government Pleader for MA & UD appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking prayer as under: "to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents withholding the final bill for the work executed by it namely "Construction of Road (By WMM) from St. Jolg €chool to Railway Limits (Vijayapuri Road) on LHS and Sangeet lunction to i'i

Railway guest house to Rail Nilayam RUB and Vignayan Computers to Railway Degree College on RHS on inner ring road from Sangeet Junction to Tarnaka Junction", endlessly on the pretext of seeking clarification from the Covernment on applicability of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated

25. O2.20L2 Finance (Works and Projects F7) Department as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and c,f,nsequently direct the respondents to release the final bill including the amount of price adjustments approved irr the deviation and included in the supplementary agreement concluded by the 4th respondent with the irrterest @ 24o/o from the date of conclusion of Supplementary agreement and also to the release the rr:tention monies as payable at the end of the defect li,ability period since the defect liability period of two years has expired on 08.08.2013 and pass orders".

3. -l-he case of the petitioner is that he completed the works namely construction of road, from Sangeet lunction to Tarnaka Junction and accordingly, the Office of the Executive Engineer, Projects Division-II, G.H.M.C., Hyderabad has issued a letter, dated 05.03.2012, categorically stating that the da'te of completion of works is 08.08.2OL1, but however the respondent authorities by invoking Clause 9 of G.O.Ms;. No. 1 Finance (W&P-F7) Department, dated 25.02.'?-O12, calculated the bills and paid the amounts to the petitioner.

n

4. Themaingrievanceofthewritpetitioneristhatasthe works were alreadY comPleted and the work comPletion certificateWasalreadyissuedon08.os.20ll,andeveninthe supPlementarY agreement, which was entered on 28.06.2012,G.o.Ms.No.252wasfollowedandquantifiedthe amountasRs.5T,TB,43Tl.,thequestionofapplicabilityof G.O.Ms.No.1 Finance (W&P-F7; DePartment' dated 25.O2.20L2 does not arise 28.08.2008 is aPPlicable' and G.O.Ms.No '252, dated

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that G'O'Ms'No'l' dated 25'02'2OtZ is not applicable, as the amount was quantified vide the supplementary agreement' dated 28'06 '2O1r2' by following G.O.Ms.No.252, dated 28'08'2008'

6. Percontra,SriG'MadhusudhanReddy'learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondent Nos'2 to 5 contendedthatthepresentwritpetitionisnotmaintainable, asthedisputeisinrelationtopaymentofamountspursuant tothecontractundertakenforconstructionofroadbythe petitioner,andassuchil"-up,ropriateremedyavailableto I

the petitioner is to approach the competent civir court for que,ntification of the amount. 7- Firsily, the contention of the rearned standing counser for GHMG appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that this cou,t has no jurisdiction is untenabre, for the simple reason that the Government orders are very crear to the extent of the payment of amounts towards the work compreted in pursrance to G.o.Ms.No.252, dated 2g.08.200g and as the subjerct works were atready completed on 08.0g.2011 i.e., before the issuance of G.o.Ms.No.1, dated 2s.02.2012 itserf. 9' secondry, since the amount has atready been quantified in.view of G.O.Ms.No.252, dated supplermentary agreement entered on 28.08.2009, vide 28.06.20L3, the respondents are precruded from invoking G.o.Ms.No.1 dated 25'02'2012 in refusing to pay the said amount, as such, the respondents are bound to pay the quantified amount of Rs.57,lz8 ,437/- to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to pay the quantified amount of Rs'57,78 ,437/- to the petitioner, after giving credit to the q\_ ,|, amount already paid, by showing proper proof of the same bypassingaspeakingordertothateffect,withinaperiodof eight(08)weeksfromthedateofreceiptofacopyofthis order.

9. With the above directiot'ls' this Writ Petition is disPosed of. There shall be no order as to costs ,l '; lt . ,., .'.\ f" N4iscellunlors,petitions, if any are pending, sha* stand ,ITRUE COPY,, ruS,:tm+'fry3i'Xl ,/e closed. SECTloN OFFICER To, ,H?r$",i!?'i?;*3,?XXf'-"f;'*#"d:::"J:::J::"":"::: , ffiru[x;:xtr:!"'3:11-"r Hyderabad Municipar corporation' cc . il{,ru^:tffi['i;:l'&ir:::raoio ^ -ater Hvderabad Municipar l*:gl.u :::: CorPoratton'

6. one cc to sRl S'VEDA u]?"j ' H:f,::;*:,ri'uuls:l*nlu:*m'"p";i"'.;' toPucl

8. One CC to SRI G'MADHUSU[

9. Two CD CoPies' BSK TKS Y{- j

I e HIGH COURT DATED i 1010212026

ORDER

WP.No.20197 of 2015 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (. o LJto

THE APfr /rJ26 '3 rCHEo * * tu}- ,oP(d bq'