RANI-SATYA SAI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in coercing the petitioner to furnish a no claim undertaking for closing the contract besides not returning the performance bank guarantee as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to coerce it to furnish the no claim undertaking and to direct the respondents to release bank guarantee No. 04821GPER004309, dated 17 -11 -2009 furnished by the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Rajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation (AP).

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed a counter affidavit wherein he has disputed the claim of the petitioner that due to the reasons attributable to the respondents, it could not execute the work properly. Respondent No. 2 has alleged that the petitioner has stopped the work abruptly leaving the work to unsafe level. Respondent No. 2 has however averred that after approval of the construction of C.C. walls on Hundri river based on the original estimate prepared with 2007 floods, the Chief Engineer (P), Kurnool in his letter dated 25 -5 -2010 has requested the Chief Engineer, CDO, Hyderabad to revise the H.Ps. prepared based on 2009 (wrongly mentioned as 2007) flood levels only and that accordingly the approved H.Ps. were got revised by the Chief Engineer, CDO, vide his letter dated 9 -8 -2011. It is further stated that the State Level Standing Committee in its meeting dated 19 -12 -2011 opined that the work may be closed without paying any damages to the petitioner and that the revised administrative approval may be obtained from the Government. That the Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 11 -1 -2012 has communicated the opinion of the State Level Standing Committee and requested for suitable instructions in the matter. The Government in turn has issued Memo No. 22749/M&MI -R.III/A1/2011, dated 24 -2 -2012 requesting to evaluate each of the alternatives with reference to the conditions of the contract and other work orders and that accordingly vide letter dated 17 -5 -2012 the following three alternatives were recommended to the Government by the Chief Engineer (P):