IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1631 of 2008 Between: M/s. G. Venkata Reddy & Co., Rep., by its Managing Partner Dr. P. Phani Kumar Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. … Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Irrigation & CAD Dept, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Vinayaka Swamy Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Irrigation Counsel for respondents 2&3: Smt. Kavitha Gottipati Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar for Sri M. Papa Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1631 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.98 (I & CAD) Department, dated 05.07.2000. The petitioner, which is a civil contractor, is executing certain construction works of Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi Project in Kurnool district under agreement No.16/SE/2004-05 dated 28.02.2005. The petitioner averred that in view of the impugned G.O., wherein respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to issue instructions to all the concerned to deduct 0.25% of the gross amount of the bills payable to the contractors and remit the same to the Director General of National Academy of Construction of India, A.P. chapter towards corpus fund for development and functioning of the said agency, the respondents have been recovering the amounts from the bills payable to him. At the hearing, Sri P. Vinayaka Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in WP.No.23750 of 2000 and batch dated 19.07.2005, wherein this Court quashed G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 19.05.1998, which pertains to Transport, Roads and Buildings (B.I) Department. Since the impugned G.O. is in pari materia with the said G.O. and applies to Irrigation Department, the principle laid down in the abovementioned judgment squarely applies to this case. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Smt. Kavitha Gottipati learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not disputed this position. Respondent No.4 has not appeared though notice was served by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the abovementioned judgment, this writ petition is allowed in terms thereof. The respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner, if any, already recovered from its bills. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.2018 and 2019 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim reliefs are dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.03.2008 ES