IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 21237 of 2008 Between: Kotla Venkata Ramakrishna Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Ranga Rao, R/o. Narsapuram, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Progs.II) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep by its Principal Secretary. 2 The Chief Engineer, (Panchayat Raj), PMGSY, SRT GN Bhavan, Errammanzil Colony, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, P.R. Circle, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 The Executive Engineer, P.R. Division, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in not approving the price escalation for the work bearing Agreement No. 80/2005-2006 dated 20-12-2005 executed by the petitioner in terms of GO Ms.No. 292, P.R. & R.D. Dept., Dated 28-7-2006 and GO Ms.No. 122, PR & RD Dept., Dated 30-3-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to issue necessary orders for payment of escalated price in respect of the above said work executed by the petitioner under 3rd and 4th respondents, forthwith to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was entrusted with the work of upgradation of a road in East Godavari District, by the Superintending Engineer, the third respondent herein. The petitioner is said to have completed the work. He states that on account of the escalation of cost of construction material, he had to incur extra expenditure in execution of the work. Placing reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.292 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Progs.II) Department, dated 28.07.2006, the petitioner submitted a representation to the third respondent for extension of the beneﬁt under the said G.O. It is stated that the representation has been acted upon and respondents 2 and 3 are said to have recommended the extension of benefit to the petitioner and it is represented that the matter is pending before the ﬁrst respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that though several months have elapsed ever since the proposal was received by the first respondent, no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. It is, no doubt, true that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 292, dated 28.07.2006, providing for price adjustment, subject to conditions mentioned therein. However, the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be extended the beneﬁt under the said G.O., needs to be examined by the ﬁrst respondent. This Court cannot express any view on that. In view of the averment of the petitioner that the execution of the work was completed several months ago, and that the proposal is pending with the ﬁrst respondent since May 2008, the matter needs to be attended to without any further delay. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the ﬁrst respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner in relation to extension of beneﬁt under G.O.Ms.No.292, dated 28.07.2006, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.09.2008. kdl