PIONEER BUILDERS Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner seeks a declaration that the communication in proceedings No.SE/TGP/CDP/DB/D3/W/120/198M dated 8-3-2001 issued by the 1st respondent - Superintending Engineer (Telugu Ganga Project) Circle, Cuddapah, is illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The factual matrix is that the petitioner is the registered contractor, executing civil works. He undertook work relating to "formation of earthen bund" for a certain extent by virtue of the agreement No.1/88- 89. The petitioner was the lowest tenderer. The due date for the completion of contract work was fixed as 4-9-1990. It appears that even at the threshold of commencement of work in the year 1989, the design of the bund was changed by the authorities resulting in substantial alteration of the accepted work. However, the respondents extended the period of the contract from time to time even without imposing any penalty, since the non-completion of work was admittedly not attributable to the petitioner. However, the petitioner had to stop the work on 9-2-1991, since the rates calculated by him at the time of contract became totally unworkable due to the supervening circumstances like the gulf war etc., and on account of which a representation had been made by the petitioner to the Government on 4-3-1991 seeking variation of rates. Having been convinced about the justifiability of the claim, the authorities fixed new rates with effect from 29-8-1993, taking into account the standard specific regulation rates of the financial year 1992-93. Since the quantum of work to be handled by the petitioner increased substantially, fixation of new rates was necessitated for the additional works entrusted to the petitioner. Basing on the Memo dated 29-8-1993 issued by the Government, the petitioner entered into four supplemental agreements with the respondents i.e., 16/93-94,1/95-96,3/96-97 and 25/96-97 dated 17-9-1993, 2-5-1995, 22-6-1996 and 7-8-1996 respectively. Accordingly the petitioner completed the work on 21-8-1996. The petitioner was paid the amounts also covered by all the bills in terms of the supplemental agreements. The other details as regards the rates mentioned in the supplemental agreements vis-a-vis additional works etc., are not very relevant. But the fact remains that as per the terms and conditions agreed upon, by both the parries, the works entrusted to the petitioner have been successfully executed in the year 1996. However, the allegation is that the 'further security deposit' and 'the earnest money deposit', which approximately comes to about Rs.16,00,000.00 has not been paid. This particular issue is not in serious controversy. Further the petitioner was awarded the work relating to widening of the lining relating to Telugu Ganga Project Main Canal to a certain extent under an agreement No.25/98-99 and the petitioner completed the work substantially well within the period. Relating this transaction also, the petitioner makes certain allegations, which again are not relevant for the present purpose.

(3.) While so, the 2nd respondent issued a communication dated 8-11-2000 pointing out that in terms of the audit objection an amount of Rs. 59.18 lakhs has been determined as recoverable from the petitioner on the ground that excess payment had been made to that extent, on account of erroneous computation under all the four supplemental agreements covered by the work agreement No.1/88-89. So the controversy is with regard to the alleged excess payments which are liable to be recovered from the petitioner, pertaining to the work of 1/88-89.