P SRINIVAS RAO Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not settling the accounts of the petitioner with regard to Packages 158 and 157 and not releasing the payment for the deposits amounting to Rs. 4,90,869/- pending with mem as illegal/ arbitrary and unjust and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and also the principles of natural justice. The petitioner consequently prays for a direction directing the respondents to release the deposits pending with them with interest.

(2.) RELEVANT FACTS: The petitioner is stated to be a contractor and was awarded the contract for the formation of the Flood Banks to Nallamada drain in Guntur District for the packages 157 and 158. Two different agreements were entered into by the petitioner with the 1st respondent on 12-3-1992 for the packages 157 and 158. The site is stated-to have been handed over to the petitioner on 30-11-1991 and 20-3-1992 respectively for the packages 158 and 157. The petitioner is stated to have completed all the items provided in the agreement which are possible for execution within the stipulated period and extension of the time was also granted without imposing any liquidated damages. The completed works were maintained for six months to the satisfaction of the Department as per the agreements. The petitioner was expelled from the site by the letter dated 30-4-1993 for the above two packages on the ground that the petitioner had abandoned the work.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the respondents did not care either to complete the work or release the deposits of Rs. 4,90,869 /- and the security deposit of Rs. 1,65, OOO/- for package No. 158 and Rs. 1,13,938/- as additional security from each interim bill. So also certain amounts with regard to package No. 157. It is however stated that the work could not be completed as necessary extension of time was not granted by the respondents and the petitioner's proposal in this regard was rejected. Repeated representations were made to the Chief Engineer to settle the accounts. Instead of settling the accounts, the petitioner was being driven from pillar to post from one office to another. In nutshell the complaint of the petitioner is that he is entitled for certain amounts with regard to the said works under the agreements entered into by him with the respondents.