THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.1280 OF 2010 DATED: 07.07.2011 Between : M/s. Sabir Dam & Water Works Construction Company, Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder K. Srinivasulu Reddy … Petitioner And R. Muralinatha Reddy and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.1280 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner in W.P.No.16998 of 2010 filed this Contempt Case to punish the respondents for allegedly disobeying the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.21445 of 2010 in W.P.No.16998 of 2010. W.P.No.16998 of 2010 was filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not revising the contract work rate of the petitioner by including 1% towards labour cess in respect of the payments made after 26.6.2007 is arbitrary and illegal. By order dated 16.7.2010 in WPMP.No.21445 of 2010 this Court granted interim stay of deduction of any amounts towards labour cess from the current bills of the petitioner. In this Contempt Case, it is alleged that in spite of the order passed by this Court in WPMP.No.21445 of 2010 in W.P.No.16998 of 2010, the respondents while making payments on 28.7.2010 and 30.7.2010 deducted labour cess of Rs.71,14,599/- and Rs.1,55,207/- respectively. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.8892 of 2008 challenging the deduction of 1% labour cess from the part bill dated 29.3.2007 and part bill dated 24.2.2008 and that the said writ petition was dismissed along with batch by order dated 15.7.2008. In view of the said judgment, the 2nd respondent proposed recovery of 1% cess which worked out to Rs.1,55,207/-. The bills were accordingly submitted to the Pay & Accounts Officer on 25.2.2010 and 25.3.2010 respectively. While so, the petitioner had again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16998 of 2010. It is also stated that the petitioner had not preferred bills after March, 2010 as the agreement itself lapsed by 6.3.2010 and he did not submit any bills after the interim order passed by this Court on 16.7.2010 in WPMP.No.21445 of 2010. The respondent No.3 filed a separate counter-affidavit on the same lines. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material placed before this Court shows that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.8892 of 2008 challenging the recovery of labour cess at 1% and the same was dismissed along with batch of writ petitions, by order dated 15.7.2008. Pending the said writ petition, there was interim stay of recovery. After the dismissal of W.P.No.8892 of 2008, certain amounts appear to have been deducted towards 1% cess. However, the interim order dated 16.7.2010 passed by this Court in WPMP.No.21445 of 2010 was only to the extent of stay of deduction of any amounts towards labour cess from the current bills of the petitioner. The specific case of the respondents that after March, 2010, the agreement itself stood lapsed on 6.3.2010 and thereafter the petitioner has not presented any bills could not be disputed by the petitioner. Apparently the interim order dated 16.7.2010 was only with regard to the current bills of the petitioner. Hence the deduction made by the respondents on 28.7.2010 and 30.7.2010 cannot be said to be from the current bills of the petitioner. Therefore the allegations made in the Contempt Case are unfounded and accordingly the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 07.07.2011 gbs