THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.10748 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner was awarded a civil contract for construction of a Balancing Reservoir at Ramatheertham Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. The agreement was entered into on 09.11.2004. The estimates of the work were prepared duly taking into account, the seigniorage fee payable on various minor minerals such as sand, earth, gravel. The rates specified therefor through G.O.Ms.No.331, dated 21.06.2000 were taken into account. The petitioner submitted bills, after execution of the work. The respondents however calculated the seigniorage fee on various materials at the rates, revised through G.O.Ms.No.217, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 29.09.2004. The petitioner contends that the deductions have to be made only at the rates which were taken into account for preparing the estimates and not those revised subsequently. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court, dated 13.04.2007 in W.P.No.7567 of 2007. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that the contract itself provides for levy of seigniorage fee at the rates that are revised from time to time and that the petitioner cannot object to the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation. The point urged by the petitioner is no longer res integra. This very aspect was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.7567 of 2007. It was held that the rates of seigniorage fee, which constituted the basis for preparation of estimates alone shall be taken into account, and that if the deductions are to be made on the rates that have been subsequently revised, the estimates also need to be modified, to that extent. In compliance, with the directions issued in that judgment, the Government in its irrigation and CID department issued memo dated 27.06.2008. It was directed that wherever there is revision of seigniorage fee subsequent to the award of contract, a revised agreement shall be executed incorporating the enhanced charges. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of memo, dated 27.06.2008 to the petitioner. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.06.2010. GJ