THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1253 of 2008 Date: 22.02.2008 Between: S.Krishna Rao … Petitioner AND Superintending Engineer, R& B Circle, Nalgonda. And others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Ashok Reddy Counsel for respondents: A.G.P. for Roads and Buildings HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1253 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the in action of the respondents in releasing the EMD and FSD amounts withheld by respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri K.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings for the respondents. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner averred that he participated in the tender process alongwith other tenderers in respect of stretch from 0/0 KM to 15/2 KM Hyderabad- Nagarjuna Sagar to Marriguda via Saireddyguda from 2/2 KM to 15/0 KM in Nalgonda district, that the petitioner was entrusted with the work and accordingly an agreement was entered into on 19.9.2003 for execution of the said work. The petitioner claimed that he completed the entire work to the satisfaction of the respondents and the final bill was also paid to him and that the defect liability period of two years also was completed by 19.11.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the completion of the defect liability period, the EMD and FSD amounts (wrongly mentioned as SFD) of the petitioner are not being paid. This writ petition came up on 28.1.2007 and at the instance of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport, Roads and Buildings it was adjourned to 15.2.2008. Again on the said date, the learned Assistant Government Pleader sought for time for getting instructions. Today at the hearing, he reported no instructions and stated that in spite of repeated requests made to respondent Nos.1 and 2, no instructions have been sent by them. In the absence of any denial of the averments contained in the affidavit, this Court is left with no option other than accepting the averments contained in the affidavit of the petitioner as true and correct. If the works were completed and defect liability period also expired, there is absolutely no justification for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to withhold the EMD and FSD amounts of the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to release the EMD and FSD amounts to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22.02.2008 mdaa