IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 2372 of 2001 BETWEEN: B. Sankara Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Flat No.101, Plot No.73, Padmaja Apartments, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By its Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer-in-Chief (I & CAD) Department, Erramanzail, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Nellore. Nellore District. 4 The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Nellore, Nellore District. 5 Pay and Accounts Officer, Nellore, Nellore 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 19.5.1998 as illegal, void and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BADRI.VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 19.05.1998 in directing the Executive Engineers to deduct 0.25% of gross amount of the bill for the purpose of establishment of the Institute of Construction Technology of India at Hyderabad. Petitioner submits that as per the orders of the Government such clause must be included in the agreement/tender notification for deduction of the said amount. He further submits that in the existing contract such clause was not incorporated and therefore, the deduction of 0.25% of gross amount of the bill is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that unless such clause is included in the agreement/tender notification as indicated in the aforesaid GO the said amount cannot be deducted. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the said GO is illegal and arbitrary but the GO indicates that such clause shall be added in the agreement/tender notification. As the petitioner questions the said GO alone, I do not see any justification in declaring the said GO as illegal and arbitrary. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that insofar as the bills, which are sought to be recovered but where such stipulation is not incorporated in the agreement/tender notification, are concerned, the said 0.25% of gross amount of the bill cannot be deducted. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 12, 2008 DSK