IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25934 of 2000 Between: Mongu Sarangapani. … Petitioner And The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Yerramanzil, Hyderabad and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Y.Ashok Raj. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Panchayat Raj This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the amounts due to the petitioner towards execution of various contract works, as illegal and arbitrary. In his aﬃdavit, the petitioner claimed that he executed the following works: 1) Bishop New Nehru Street, Dornakal, P.W.Ss (IJRY) Scheme. 2) Banjara-I P.W.Ss. (S.C.) Scheme. 3) Raju Thanda-I, P.W.Ss. (N.T.S.P) Scheme. 4) Banjara-II P.W.Ss. (S.C) Scheme. 5) Raju Thanda-II, P.W.Ss. (N.T.S.P) Scheme. 6) Tellabanda Thanda H/o.Chilkodu village, Dornakal Mandal, C/o. open well and civil work (PVC pipes line). The petitioner averred that he deposited EMD+FSD of Rs.52,115/- for the above mentioned contract works, which were completed in all respects; and that as the respondents have not refunded the said EMD amounts, he got legal notice dated 18-3-1997 issued to respondents 2 to 4. As no action was taken from their end, the petitioner got issued another legal notice dated 12-5-1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far the EMD amounts have not been refunded. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4 he admitted that the works mentioned in Serial Nos.1 to 5 supra were completed by the petitioner in all respects and all the bills pertaining to those works were paid to him except refund of EMD amounts as the petitioner did not choose to claim the same within three years from the date of completion of defect liability period. He stated that, in view of the same, the EMD amounts were forfeited to the Government Account in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Detailed Standard Speciﬁcations (for short “the APDSS”). With respect to the work mentioned at Serial No.6 supra, it is averred that the petitioner was entrusted with the said work on nomination basis; that the petitioner requested the department to recover the EMD from his ﬁrst bill and the same was accepted; and that as the petitioner failed to execute the work and complete the same in accordance with the agreement, the contract was terminated as per Clause 60(1) of the APDSS duly forfeiting the value of the work executed, but not paid. With regard to refund of EMD amounts for the ﬁrst ﬁve works, which were admittedly completed in all respects, I see no justiﬁcation in the respondents not refunding the EMD amounts pertaining to the said contract works. Para 463 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Works Accounts Code provides that in the accounts for March of each year, certain amounts should be credited to the Government as lapsed deposits, which include the balances unclaimed for more than three complete account years. The expression ‘unclaimed’ presupposes that the Department oﬀered the amount, but the Contractor did not claim the same. It is not the case of the respondents that they called upon the petitioner to receive the said amount, but he did not claim the same. Having got the works executed and completed them in all respects, it is not permissible for the respondents to oﬀer a lame excuse to withhold the EMD amounts, which are legitimately refundable to the petitioner. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for refund of the EMD amounts in respect of the ﬁrst ﬁve works is allowed. The petitioner’s claim for refund of EMD in respect of the 6th work is rejected because the contract was terminated. Unless the petitioner successfully challenges the said termination of contract before appropriate Forum, he is not entitled to claim refund of the EMD in respect of the said work. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to refund the EMD amounts in respect of the ﬁve works mentioned at Serial Nos.1 to 5 supra within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ----------------------- ----------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:05-08-2008 MNR