THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22233 of 2010 Date: 29.09.2011 Between: M/s Sabir Dam and Water Works Construction Company, Hyderabad, Reptd by its Power of Attorney holder, B.Sudhakar Reddy. ..... Petitioner AND Govt of A.P., Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Department, Hyderabad and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Vengala Reddy Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Irrigation and CAD The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to release the bank guarantees towards mobilisation advance to the extent of recovered amounts in terms of L.S. Agreement No.79/2004-05, dated 23.03.2005. The petitioner was entrusted with the execution of work under Package No.4 relating to conducting detailed investigation, preparation of Hydraulic particulars, designs and engineering, preparation of estimates and excavation of main canal, formation of banks including Canal Lining and Construction of CM and CD works from Km 69.145 to 93.700 of Left Main Canal of Indira Sagar Project (Polavaram Project), vide L.S.Agreement No.79/2004-05, dated 23.03.2005. The petitioner was paid mobilisation advance in terms of Clause-49.1 of the agreement against submission of bank guarantees equivalent to 10% of the contract amount. Clause-49.5 of the agreement envisages that the value of bank guarantee for the advance payments given to the Contractor can be progressively reduced by the amount repaid by the Contractor as certified by the Executive Engineer. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not been giving effect to Clause-49.5 of the agreement by proportionately reducing its bank guarantee liability to the extent of the payments being recovered from its bills. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. This Court by interim order, dated 05.10.2010, directed the respondents to act in accordance with Clause- 49.5 of the agreement by proportionately reducing the amount of bank guarantee towards mobilisation grant to the extent the recovery has already been effected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this order is being complied with. As the agreement clause referred to above does not admit of any controversy, there can be no reason whatsoever for the respondents not to accept the petitioner’s request to reduce the bank guarantee liability in proportion to the recovery of mobilisation advance effected from its bills. In this view of the mater, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give effect to Clause-49.5 of the agreement, as directed by this Court vide interim order, dated 05.10.2010. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.28330 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th September 2011 DR