THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9220 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order, declaring the action of the respondents in recovering 2% on contract price towards maintenance charges over and above the 5% retention amount in respect of L.S.Agreement No.32/BLIP/04-05, dated 25.02.2005 for package No.21 and Agreement No.33/BLIP/2004-05, dated 25.02.2005 for Package No.22 as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of the terms of the contract and without authority of law and consequently direct the respondents not to recover any amount from the petitioner in violation of the terms of the contracts.” Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development appearing for the respondents that the issue in this writ petition has already been considered by this Court in common order, dated 23.07.2008 passed in Writ Petition Nos.12979 and 13034 of 2008 and the same is covered to be disposed of in the light of the said common order. In the aforesaid order, the learned single Judge of this Court held that deduction of 2% amount towards maintenance charges over and beyond 5% (referable to Clause 47) could not be retained under the color of Clause 47. In the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, the petitioner has extracted Clause 47 of the agreement, which reads as under: “47. Retention: 47.1 The department shall retain from each payment due to the contractor @ 5% of bill amount until completion of the whole of the works. The retention amount so accumulated will be released against the bank guarantee, in spells of Rs.50 lakhs. 47.2 On completion of the whole of the Works out of total amount retained (i.e. 5%) 2.5% will be re-paid to the Contractor and balance (i.e. 2.5%) when the Defects Liability Period has passed and the Engineer-in-Charge has certified that all the Defects notified by the Engineer-in-Charge to the Contractor before the end of this period have been corrected.” As the identical question has been considered by this Court in common order, dated 23.07.2008, in Writ Petition Nos.12979 and 13034 of 2008 and declared that there is no authority for such deduction of 2% amount towards maintenance charges over and beyond 5% (referable to Clause 47), this writ petition can also be disposed of by declaring that the action of the respondents in deducting 2% on the contract price towards maintenance charges over and above 5% of the retention amount as illegal and arbitrary. If any amount is retained, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the same. The writ petition is allowed with the declaration referred to above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th APRIL, 2011. kvni