HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 24819 of 2004 DATED: 02.02.2010 Between: K. Ramana Reddy .. Petitioner And The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, and three others .. Respondents O R D E R:- This writ is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in insisting the petitioner to entering into a Supplemental Agreement, with regard to Item Nos.13(a) and 13(b) of the Agreement dated 05.07.2002, and to accept revised lower rates, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to pay the final bill pertaining to “Closing the breach and strengthening of Tank Bund of West Kattakindipalli Tank in Pamuru Mandal, Prakasam District”. The petitioner asserts that he is a Class-III Contractor and was awarded work for “closing breach portion and strengthening of tank bund of west Kattakindapalli tank in Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District”. He states that he entered into an Agreement dated 05.07.2002 with the 1st respondent and the period of contract was three months, and on the same day, he commenced the work and completed it in the month of January, 2004. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that at the time of payment of final bills, the respondents raised an issue that the petitioner should enter into a Supplemental Agreement by changing Clauses 13(a) and 13(b) of the Agreement dated 05.07.2002 for alteration of the rates quoted therein and to reduce them to marginally. Hence, the writ petition. The 2nd respondent-Executive Engineer, filed counter affidavit, inter alia, denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, and stated that the earth-work as specified in the Agreement, with regard to Items 13(a) and 13(b) was executed by Machinery with the description accepted by the petitioner. But, while according sanction to the estimate, machinery rate was not adopted erroneously in respect of the earth-work excavation, and the same was also included, in the accepted agreement with a specification that the earth-work excavation is to be done by adopting machinery only. Excess quantity was also measured over the estimate quantity and recorded for finalizing the bill for which payment is to be made as per the specification, the data (rate) is corrected at the rate of Rs.82.40 per cum, but not for Rs.92.80 per cum. As the earth-work is excavated with machinery, and as the rate of item is changed, a Supplemental Agreement is to be concluded for item Nos.13(a) and 13(b). The rate of Rs.92.80 for manual work is not entitled as per excavation and specifications. It is also not true to say that the department has never informed as to the revised rates. The earth-work in respect of the items were not executed as per the conditions of the Agreement, and the rates are verified while preparing work-slip and found that the rates are not as per the specification of the Agreement. Hence, the work-slip was prepared as per standard data, and specification for which the petitioner was requested to conclude Supplemental Agreement for the items deviated from the Agreement. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The contention raised by the respondents cannot be countenanced. It amounts to insisting the petitioner on executing a Supplemental Agreement reducing the rates of charges as fixed in the Agreement dated 05.07.2002, which is nothing but arbitrary. However, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the deposit of E.M.D. made by the petitioner in the shape of Bank Guarantee No.6/2004 dated 29.05.2004 for Rs.47,000/- was returned to the petitioner on 09.08.2005, based on the representation made by him. It is also stated that the Security Deposit of Rs.41,830/- is withheld at 2.50% on the total value of the work done i.e. Rs.16,73,191/- and LS 2nd and Final Bill could not be released to the petitioner due to pendency of the writ petition. Though the respondents denied the allegations of the petitioner, during the course of arguments, it was conceded that E.M.D. was released to the petitioner and the account was not settled in view of the pendency of the writ petition. Under those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the payment of final bills, security deposit and dues payable to the petitioner, forthwith. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 2nd February, 2010 bcj