IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 27244 of 2008 Between: M/s. V. Prabhakar Reddy - Coramandal Prestcrete Private Limited (JV), Rep. by Its G.P.A. Holder Gannamaneni Corayya, S/o. Sri Ramachandra Rao, N. Srinivas, S/o. Sri Venkataratnam, Regd. Office at Flat No. 503, Peary House apartments, Door No. 6-3-252/2/2, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary to the Government, Finance & Planning (Works & Projects) Departments, Secretariat Buildings of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, BLIP Circle, Pebbair, Mahabubnagar District. 4 The Executive Engineer, BLIP, Pebbair, Mahabubnagar District. 5 The National Academy of Constructions Hyderabad, Rep. by Director General Pioneer House, 6-3-653, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: (i) declaring G.O.Ms.No. 98 (I&CAD) Department dated 05-07-2000 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by the petitioner for executing the work relating to Investigation Design Estimation and Execution of High Level of Left Main Canal Distributory System to including Construction of CM & CD works to feed an Ayacut of 29900 acres in Sangambanda Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District" vide Agreement No. 31/BLIP/2004-05, dated 24-02-2005 and set aside the same. (ii) to declare that the action of the respondents 3 and 5 effecting recovery of 0.25% towards NAC as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to effect recovery from the running bills and to refund the amounts so far recovered from the Petitioner's bills in pursuance of G.O.ms.No. 98 (I&CAD) Department, dated 05-07-2000 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRATAP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27244 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to set aside G.O.Ms.No.98 (I & CAD) Department, dated 05.07.2000. According to the petitioner, it is a registered Special Class Contractor with the Government of A.P. and executing works relating to Investigation, Design, Estimation and Execution of High Level Left Main Canal Distributory System including construction of CM & CD works to feed an Ayacut of 29900 acres in Sangambanda Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, under agreement No.31/BLIP/2004-05 dated 25.02.2005. The petitioner averred that in view of the impugned G.O., wherein respondent No.1 directed Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation & CAD Department, Hyderabad, to issue instructions to all the concerned to deduct 0.25% of the gross amount of the bills payable to the contractors and remit the same to the Director General of National Academy of Construction of India, A.P. chapter, towards corpus fund for development and functioning of the said agency, the respondents have been recovering the amounts from the bills payable to it. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in WP.No.23750 of 2000 and batch dated 19.07.2005, wherein this Court quashed G.O.Ms.No.92 Transport, Roads and Buildings (B.I) Department dated 19.05.1998. Since the impugned G.O. is in pari materia with the said G.O. and applies to Irrigation Department, the principle laid down in the above mentioned judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. As the issue raised in this writ petition, is squarely covered, by the above mentioned judgment, this writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms thereof. The respondents are directed to refund the amounts to the petitioner, if any, already recovered from its bills. _________________ JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU 30TH December, 2008 PNV