G RAJENDER REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M Ganga Rao, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner speaking through its Managing Partner claimed that it was awarded the work of construction of Collectorate Complex at Nalgonda by the 3rd respondent under an agreement No. 40/ B/95-96, dated 24-06-1995, the work having been executed and completed by 08-02-1999 and handed over to the 3rd respondent on 14-04-1999. The value of the total work had gone up to Rs. 4,82,28,308/- and the petitioner had to approach this Court in W.P. No. 7205 of 2002 against non-finalization of the final bill and payment of the balance. When the writ petition was dismissed on 18-04-2002, the petitioner preferred W.A. No. 994 of 2002, which was allowed directing the Government to consider and approve the revised estimate and pass appropriate orders within two months. When the petitioner filed CC. No. 1191 of 2002 against noncompliance with the direction, the same was subsequently dismissed on 17-10-2003. The last bill relating to the work was the 15th bill prepared in March, 1999 and credited to the bank account of the petitioner on 08-04-1999. After gap of more than 7 years, the 4th respondent issued the impugned proceedings No. A/2157/2006, dated 19-07-2006 directing the petitioner to remit Rs. 46,66,023/- and a further sum of Rs. 5,18,446/- towards collection charges. The same was followed by a distraint order dated 03-08-2006. The letter of the 2nd respondent dated 19-04-2006 appeared to have led to these two proceedings and the amount was stated to be the excess amount paid to the petitioner. Either proceedings was not preceded by any notice or the determination of the quantum of the amount due, without paying even the legitimate dues to the petitioner as seen from the order in W.A. No. 994 of 2002. The respondents seek to recover the amounts barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 taking recourse to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, which is impermissible as per the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court since , : 1999 AIR(SC) 1305 The petitioner, therefore, desired both the proceedings to be declared illegal.

(2.) The 3rd respondent speaking for respondents 1 to 3 stated in his counter affidavit about finding several deviations in the construction of the Collectorate Complex in the foundation, flooring, plastering, altech finishing, ceiling, doors and windows and architectural items. The department made payment to the contractor from time to time from first and part bill to 15th and part bill through the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Division, Nalgonda and the payments included even deviations and supplemental items of work, which have to be corrected in the subsequent bills subject to the approval of the Chief Engineer. The revised administrative sanction for the work accorded by the Government under G.O.Rt. No. 1286, dated 25-11-2002 and the revised technical sanction from the Chief Engineer (Roads and Buildings), dated 13-12-2002 were for an amount of Rs. 3,94,03,221/- due to which the 16th and final bill prepared was found to be a negative bill because; of the excess payment paid to the petitioner for the supplemental items of work and non-SSR items of work amounting to Rs. 51,34,469/-. As there was no response from the petitioner to refund the excess payments made in pursuance of the letters addressed by the Executive Engineer to the Chief Engineer and the Senior Audit Officer of the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh to the Executive Engineer, the petitioner was again requested on 09-06-2004 to remit the amount for which there was no response. It was under the circumstances that the 4th respondent was requested to proceed under the Revenue Recovery Act and the Department was left with no other alternative. The 3rd respondent further stated that special condition No. 13 of the original agreement supports the demand and the claim is not barred by limitation. Hence, he desired the interim stay to be vacated and the writ petition to be defeated.

(3.) The 4th respondent in his counter affidavit stated about the 3rd respondent addressing the District Collector on 09-12-2005 and in pursuance of the directions of the District Collector, Hyderabad, his issuing a notice dated 19-07-2006 to the petitioner to remit the amount. The absence of response to the notice led to the distraint order dated 03-08-2006 and the 4th respondent defended himself as taking action permissible under law as evident from the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent. The notice dated 19-07-2006 was not questioned appropriately before the distraint order was issued and no objections were ever submitted against the notice. The arrears claimed by the 3rd respondent was stated by the 4th respondent to be within limitation and hence, he also requested the writ petition to fail.