THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.17653 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was awarded a contract of laying of pipes and doing earth work at K.M.128.667 and 128.717, of Telugu Ganga Project. The work was estimated at Rs.2,98,000/-. The petitioner states that he has almost completed the work, except for minor leftovers, and was released bills, to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. His grievance is that the left over bill was not released to him. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner, no doubt, has done substantial work, but the leftover work had to be done by engaging other contractors. According to the respondents, the value of the work executed by the petitioner is Rs.2,59,191/-, and after deducting the cost of the material supplied to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.1,97,827/- was paid. They contend that no amount is due, to be paid to the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development. The respondents do not dispute the award of contract in favour of the petitioner, and the factum of his completing the work to the tune of Rs.2,59,191/-. The petitioner does not dispute the receipt of payment of Rs.1,57,000/-. He is under the impression that the leftover bill was not paid. However, a perusal of the counter-affidavit discloses that the material, such as pipes, cement and steel were supplied by the department, and statutory deductions had to be effected. If they are taken into account, the petitioner is paid entire bill for the work, that was executed by him. So far as the leftover work is concerned, the department got it executed by engaging different agencies. The petitioner cannot be extended any relief, vis-à-vis that, at this length of time. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, his client made some deposits towards E.M.D, etc., to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, and that the same has not been refunded. Strictly speaking, the petitioner is not entitled for that amount, since he did not complete the work, by himself. One factor, however, that exists in his favour is that the respondents did not terminate the contract. The occasion to verify the nature of the work executed by the petitioner does not exist, in view of the passage of time. Therefore, the respondents are under obligation to refund the E.M.D., and other deposits. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part, directing the respondents to refund the E.M.D., and other deposits made by the petitioner, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Dt.28-10-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO