THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.17274 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the impugned letter No.DB/D1/A-21/507 dated 17.6.2005 of third respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to refund all the deposits made by the petitioner in connection with Agreement No.23/2004-2005 dated 30.12.2004 including the bank guarantee given by the petitioner. It appears, petitioner worked as Work Inspector at Nagarjuasagar Project from 1961 to 1968 and thereafter she was transferred to Jawaharlal Nehru Canal in the year 1968. She retired on 30.6.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. While that being so, third respondent called for tender for attending to the repairs of left and right banks from KM 13.200 to 19.200 of Nagarjunasagar right canal. The estimated amount of the tender was Rs.9.00 lakhs and petitioner quoted 36.15% less than the estimated value of the contract. Thus, she became the lowest tenderer and the work was awarded in her favour and an agreement was entered into on 30.12.2004. However, when the petitioner procured proclainers and started the work on 31.12.2004 itself, at about 9.30 p.m. certain persons belonging to the local Member of Legislative Assembly i.e. fourth respondent had come to the site and beaten the operator of the proclainer and other workers and threatened that the machinery will be burnt if they proceed to work. Thereafter, petitioner tried to resolve the problem peacefully by meeting various local officials, but the fourth respondent and his men were insisting that all the Government works within the local area of fourth respondent shall be undertaken only by his people as he has spent huge amounts for the elections. After having failed in her attempts to restart the work, petitioner gave representation to the first respondent-District Collector on 28.1.2005 and also to the Minister for Cooperation. Petitioner also sent a copy of the complaint to the Superintendent of Police for protection. According to the petitioner, there was no response from the respondents and surprisingly the respondents have passed order of cancellation of contract by forfeiting the EMD of Rs.17,600/- and the bank guarantee furnished by her. Hence this writ petition. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that as per the agreement, petitioner has to complete the work by 19.1.2005. In the representation submitted by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, she stated that some persons of the fourth respondent are preventing her to commence and carry out the work. But when a work has been awarded to the contractor, it is the responsibility of the contractor to complete it within the time schedule and handover it to the department. The contention of the petitioner that she was prevented to do the work by the persons of fourth respondent does not contain any substantial ground to ask the Department to give shelter. However, the representation was sent to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation for conducting enquiry and to submit report. The Executive Engineer, conducted an enquiry and submitted report to the Superintending Engineer on 7.4.2005, who in turn has sent to the District Collector on 16.5.2005. It was further stated in the counter that since the petitioner had not taken any initiation to commence the work even with the assistance of police or through by any means, the Executive Engineer has issued notice to complete the work, otherwise the contract will be terminated and the EMD and FSD will be forfeited. However, it is seen from the letter dated 7.4.2005 that the Deputy Executive Engineer, Monitoring Sub-division, Macherla has reported that the contractor has brought the proclain to site of work on 31.12.2004 and started the work and abruptly removed the proclaim from the works site without intimation to the department (A.E, D.E.E, E.E). Two notices were served to the contractor and final notice was also issued on 16.3.2005. From the above, it is clear that on 31.12.2004 itself petitioner brought the proclainer and started the work and thereafter in view of resistance from the local people, she could not carry out the work and she reported the same to the department. But no body has helped her to wriggle out of the problem. On the other hand, she was blamed saying that it is the duty of the contractor to complete the work by any means by taking police protection. It appears, in spite of there being a complaint made by the petitioner to the police, no protection was provided. Further, as contended by the petitioner, the work was entrusted to one Madhusudhan Reddy, who is said to be relative of fourth respondent and he completed the work thereafter. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be blamed for not completing the work within the time schedule. In fact she started the work on 30.12.2004 and in view of the threat by local people, it was not possible for her to complete the work. Therefore question of forfeiture of EMD of Rs.17,600/- and encashing bank guarantee of Rs.99,500/- does not arise. Therefore, the impugned letter is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter dated 17.6.2005 is set aside and the respondents are directed to refund an amount of Rs.17,600/- and the bank guarantee of Rs.99,500/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 27.1.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.17274 of 2005 27.1.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.17274 of 2005 Date: 27th January, 2011 Between: Kum.Sankara Susheela .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Guntur district and others. .. Respondents