IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.965 of 2008 Between: M/s.Sri Avantika-Sai Venkata(J.V), Rep.by its authorised Signatory A.Sreeramulu, S/o.Sri.Chennaiah, R/o.3/457,Lakshmipuram,Nellroe Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Superintending Engineer,RLISP Circle, Pebbair,Mahabubnagar Dist 2 Executive Engineer,Division No.1 Pebbair,Mahabubnagar Dist 3 Assistant Pay &Accounts Officer, Gadwal Mahabubnagar Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ASHOK REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2:AGP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in deducting seigniorage charges for the earth used by the petitioner for raising the existing bund of Shankara Samudram tank, as illegal and contrary to agreement, dated 14.03.2005. At the hearing, Sri K.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Clause 25 of the Agreement Volume-1 Part-A “Bill Of Quantities”, which reads as under: “The contractor would be permitted to use the excavated useful soils and stone for construction purpose. Soils used for construction either for homogeneous section in hearting or in casing zone based on the suitability will be at free of cost and the cost of stone used for construction purpose will be recovered from the contractor’s bill. The contractor should quote his Bid price keeping in view of the above aspects.” Placing reliance on the above-reproduced Clause, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the agreement permits the petitioner to use the excavated earth in the construction of bund free of cost, levy of seigniorage charges on the earth so used is contrary to the said clause of the agreement. In my considered view, there is no merit in this submission. Clause 25 of the agreement referred to above only enables the petitioner to use the excavated earth free of cost. There is no stipulation that the petitioner is absolved from payment of seigniorage charges on the earth so used, which is a statutory levy under the provisions of the extant Act and the Rules. Therefore, using the excavated earth free of cost and liability of the petitioner to pay seigniorage charges are two different and distinct aspects and the latter aspect is not covered by the agreement. Admittedly, the petitioner has got statutory liability fastened on it to pay seigniorage charges and in the absence of the agreement relieving the petitioner from such an obligation, it cannot avoid payment of seigniorage charges on the excavated earth by taking shelter under Clause 25 of the agreement. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.1150 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th JUNE, 2009. kvni