S NANDI REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Petition is filed seeking review of order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5977 of 2016 dated 14.12.2017, wherein this Court disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the review petitioner, with the following direction;

(2.) Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the review petition stating that this petition is not maintainable under law. That to review an order passed by this Court, the review petitioner has to satisfy that the order passed is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence has been discovered and the same was not within his knowledge even after exercising due diligence, as such, he could not produce the same before this Court at the time of passing of order or he has shown some other sufficient reason to allow for review. Since the petitioner has not shown any one of the aforesaid grounds, this petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. That the review petition is filed after 30 days of receipt of the order dated 14.12017, as such, the same is barred by limitation and that on this ground also, the same is liable to be dismissed. That on the complaint filed by the petitioner, the Honble Lokayukta for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana disposed of the same by order dated 201.2016 to approach competent civil court to redress his grievance. Without approaching the competent civil court, petitioner filed W.P.No.5977 of 2016. It is stated that except dumping the material, he has not done any work and that it is the responsibility of the petitioner to take care of the material dumped and the respondents are not responsible for the loss of material. That as he has not done any work at the site, no payments can be made to him and that the petitioner has not filed any document to show that he has executed a particular work. That the APSS Rules does not permit a contractor to execute a particular work according to the current SSR deviating the original Standard Specific Rates. It is stated that only at the fault of the petitioner, the alleged work has not been completed even after extension of time. It is stated that bifurcation of State has nothing to do with the present case. It is stated that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the prayer for modification of order dated 14.12017 in WP No.5977 of 2016 by awarding Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation to the work done. That if the petitioner aggrieved by the order of this Court dated 14.12017, he may challenge the same by preferring appeal before the Honble Division Bench or approach a competent civil court for redressal of his grievance and sought for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner reiterating the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Review Petition and denied the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent stating that Clause 60 of A.P.Standard Specifications is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch as the costs of two works awarded to the petitioner is only Rs. 5 lakhs each. It is stated that the respondents have failed to give administrative sanction enabling the petitioner to complete the work, as such, he could not complete the work within the time stipulated by this Court.