THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.25405 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not making payments to the petitioner as per the revised estimate in respect of the work carried out by him in C.R.Agreement No.04/99-2000 for the total work done by him as arbitrary, capricious, illegal, and a consequential direction is also sought to direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.24,99,837/- forthwith along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum till the date of payment. It appears, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondents in C.R.Agreement No.04/99-2000 for execution of road work “improvement to Ghat portion in K.M. 15/6 to 17/0 of Anantapur – Kalyandurg - Raidurg Road”. The work as per the agreement was originally sanctioned for Rs.32,00,000/-. However, it appears, during the execution of the work some hard rock surfaced under the gradient was not proper, and therefore, on the representations received from the motor transport operators as well as the general public, a decision was taken to lower the gradient for removing the hard rock which was found at almost every stretch of the road work entrusted to the petitioner. Therefore, the Superintendent Engineer, who visited the spot, directed the petitioner to carry on the blasting operations for the purpose of execution of the work. Even the Superintending Engineer, who inspected, also recommended for executing the work by blasting the hard rock. In fact, the Chief Engineer (R&B), Roads, through his letter No.44112/D&P/DCE.II/DEE.II/95, dated 08.08.2001, recommended for an additional amount of Rs.39.30 lakhs. Thereafter, in the supplementary agreement entered into between the parties after revised estimate, the value of the agreement was shown as Rs.55,68,090.00. The petitioner also signed the supplementary agreement and the entire amount was paid to him. There is no dispute as to this aspect. However, it is the case of the petitioner that between the date of execution of original agreement and supplementary agreement, the work was already completed in 2001. The supplementary agreement is nothing but regularization of the additional work entrusted to him on the revised rates. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that having recommended for an additional amount of Rs.39.30 lakhs the supplementary agreement speaks about only Rs.55,00,000/-, and the petitioner is still entitled to another amount of about Rs.24,00,000/-. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the initial work was agreed to be executed for Rs.32.00 lakhs and the same was revised due to extra work done by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.59.50 lakhs. Accordingly, the entire amount has been paid to the petitioner, and the petitioner cannot seek revised estimate of Rs.73.00 lakhs to be paid to him. The revised estimate of Rs.73.00 lakhs does not come in the way, as the same has been approved to the tune of Rs.59.50 lakhs, and to the said effect, the petitioner has entered into the supplementary agreement dated 08.02.2002. In fact, the petitioner has also accepted the same, and settled the final bill. Having done so, he cannot claim that the bill ought to have been Rs.73.00 lakhs and not Rs.59.50 lakhs. It appears, though a recommendation was made for payment of Rs.73.00 lakhs as revised estimate by the Chief Engineer to the Secretary to Government, R & B Department, in view of entering into supplementary agreement to regulate the work done earlier on 08.02.2002 it was approved only to the tune of Rs.59.50 lakhs, which was already paid. Under those circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner has been paid as per the supplementary agreement, but it is his claim that the very approval under the supplementary agreement could have been Rs.73.00 lakhs and not Rs.59.50 lakhs. In this regard, the petitioner heavily relied upon the correspondence made between the Chief Engineer and the Principal Secretary to Government, R & B Department. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the Chief Engineer concerned. On filing such representation the respondents shall consider and pass appropriate reasoned orders as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (C.V.RAMULU, J) 14.12.2010 vs