THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.13176 of 2005 Date: 24.02.2011 Between : G. Basivi Reddy and others … Petitioners and The Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, Rep.by its Commissioner, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.13176 of 2005 ORDER : The petitioners, who are the employees of the respondent- Corporation have assailed the order in Rc.No.EE3-1269/2004, dated 4.4.2005 issued by the respondent-Corporation, whereby an amount of Rs.1,09,478/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioners alleging that due to their negligence, the respondent- Corporation suffered loss of the said amount towards payment of compensation to the contract labour, who died in the mishap of collapse of a bridge. 2. While the petitioners were working as Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and Deputy Executive Engineer, respectively, the respondent-Corporation entrusted the petitioners to supervise the work relating to the construction of a footover bridge on Bandar Canal between Raghavaiah Park and Ambedkar Park at Vijayawada. The contract to execute the said work was allotted to one V.Ramachandra Rao. Even before the work was completed, the said bridge is said to have collapsed on 8.2.1997 causing the death of a contract labour, by name R. Venkateswara Rao. The wife of the deceased-R. Venkateswara Rao filed W.C.No.71 of 1998 on the file of the Labour Court, Ongole, claiming compensation against the contractor and the respondent- Corporation. The said petition was allowed by order dated 27.9.2001 awarding a sum of Rs.1,09,478/- towards compensation, fastening the liability both on the contractor and the respondent- Corporation. However, in order to avoid the legal complications, the respondent-Corporation remitted the entire amount of compensation and thereby got itself discharged from the liability. Since the construction work was under the control and supervision of the petitioners, alleging that they are responsible for the collapse of the bridge on account of their negligence, the respondent-Corporation proposed to collect the said amount of compensation from the petitioners. In that regard, the respondent- Corporation issued a notice in Rc.No.EE3-1269/04, dated 24.11.2004. As the petitioners did not pay the said amount, another notice was issued on 14.3.2005. Pursuant to the same, the 1st petitioner sent a reply dated 7.4.2005 praying to drop all further proceedings in the matter. Since there was no response from the resondent-Corporation, he also made a representation dated 15.4.2005 requesting to furnish certain documents to enable him to give his final reply. The other petitioners also made similar representations. However, without responding to the said representations, the respondent-Corporation passed the impugned order in Rc.No.EE3-1269/2004, dated 4.4.2005 seeking to recover a sum of Rs.36,493/- from each of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri S. Krishna Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Smt. G. Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that after the collapse of the bridge, an Expert Team consisting of Professors and Engineer-in-Chief was appointed to investigate the reasons for the collapse. The team gave its opinion that the collapse of the bridge was due to the defective execution of work by the contractor and the Engineers were in no way responsible for the said collapse. Further, as per the provisions of A.P. Detailed Standard Specifications, whenever an accident takes place resulting in the death of a person, the contractor should report to the Section Officer concerned within 24-00 hours, who inturn should report the matter to the higher authorities. In the instant case, no such report had been received by the respondent- Corporation. The petitioners assert that the incident occurred not due to their negligence, but due to the defective execution of the work by the contractor and hence the contractor alone should have been made liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that, in any event, the respondent-Corporation has not conducted enquiry to ascertain the factual position and fix the responsibility of the petitioners for the said untoward incident, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. 5. On the other hand, Smt. G. Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit contends that the petitioners, being the officers, who were entrusted with the work of supervision of the construction, are collectively responsible for the faults occurred in the execution of the said work. It is contended that the estimates prepared by the Assistant Engineer were recommended by the Deputy Executive Engineer and the same were presented to the executive authority for administrative sanction. She also contends that it is the responsibility of the officers to supervise the work until it is completed. Since the petitioners did not show due diligence and failed to supervise the work properly, the incident had occurred, which ultimately resulted in the death of a person, besides causing loss and damage to the reputation of the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order has validly been passed making the petitioners liable to repay compensation amount paid by the respondent- Corporation towards the death of the contract labour. 6. I have examined the contentions raised by both the counsel and perused the impugned order and also the material available on record. 7. I need not go into the merits of the case to decide whether the incident had occurred due to the negligence or dereliction of duties on the part of the petitioners. Before finding fault with the petitioners, the respondent-Corporation ought to have conducted due enquiry and fixed the responsibility of the petitioners. 8. It is true that the respondent-Corporation has issued notices to the petitioners proposing to collect the amount paid by it towards compensation. But in response thereto, the petitioners sought for supply of certain documents. Indisputably, the respondent-Corporation has not supplied the said documents. Further, in view of the stand taken by the petitioners denying their responsibility, the respondent-Corporation ought to have conducted enquiry to ascertain the facts. But, no such enquiry has been conducted and no opportunity has been given to the petitioners to put-forth their case. In view of the above lapses, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 4.4.2005 passed by the respondent- Corporation. Inasmuch as the impugned order is set aside on the only ground that enquiry has not been conducted, the respondent- Corporation is at liberty to put the petitioners on notice, conduct enquiry after duly supplying the required documents to them and take necessary action in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 24.02.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.13176 of 2005 24.02.2011 (Msr)