IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23971 of 2008 Between: S.A.Rahaman S/o.S.A.Sattar R/o.Asmangadh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to handover the cheque bearing No. 225654, dated 30.8.2008 to the tune of Rs.95,000/- and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SHANKER Counsel for the Respondent No: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a contractor. He states that he was awarded a contract work of “Interconnection from 1200 mm dia PSC main to 450 mm dia existing CI main at Moosarambagh for augmentation of Krishna Water to Moosarambagh and Saleemnagar areas” by the Managing Director of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short ‘the Board’). The said work was executed by him in the year 2005 and after verifying the work and after receipt of reports from the Quality Control and Vigilance Departments, the Director (Technical) of the respondent Board issued a notice dated 26.7.2008 directing the Director (Finance) of the respondent Board to release the payment of Rs.95,000/- to him towards the performance of the contract work and in pursuance of the same, a cheque was also prepared vide cheque No.225654 dated 30.8.2008 for an amount of Rs.95,000/- but so far the same has not been given to him. Therefore, he filed this writ petition seeking directions to the respondent Board to hand over the said cheque to him. In response to the writ allegations, a counter affidavit is filed by the respondent Board admitting the fact that the petitioner was awarded the contract work but it is stated that the site was not handed over to the him and the work was not taken up as the Board after necessary survey came to the conclusion that it was not feasible to do the said work. In fact, the mark out was not given and the site was not handed over to him and, therefore, the question of executing his part of the assignment does not arise. It is also stated the General Manager (Engg) O&M Division.II has given a reply to the notice of the petitioner on 27.2.2008 stating that petitioner is not entitled for the amount claimed by him and the payments will be made only for the transportation charges of pipes as per actuals and the deposited EMD and the petitioner was asked to contact the Deputy General Manager (Engg) Sub-Division-1 and submit his bills for transportation charges. It is further stated that the petitioner is entitled only for the refund of EMD amount of Rs.6,900/- and the actual transportation charges. Taking into consideration the serious allegations levelled by the petitioner against the respondent and also in view of the counter averments, this Court on 12.2.2009 directed the Managing Director of the respondent Board to conduct a departmental enquiry and accordingly an enquiry was conducted and ultimately a report was submitted before this Court on 6.4.2009. A perusal of the said report reveals that the petitioner has not executed the entire work except making arrangements for transportation of the pipes from the central stores to site and met miscellaneous expenditure for inauguration of the work and no MS specials were brought to site and no JCB or compressor were deployed at site for the work. It also appears that the Board will initiate disciplinary action against Mr.J.Narsing Rao, former GM (E)/QC&Vigilance Dn.,(Retd), Sri R.Bhaskar Rao DGM(F) and Sri B.Sunder DGM (E) for mis-representing the facts to the higher authorities and thereby attempting to cause financial loss to the Board. In view of the above facts, I think it appropriate to direct the respondent Board to pay the admitted amounts viz., actual transportation charges as per the SSR rates and the EMD as per the amount deposited by the petitioner forthwith. So far as taking disciplinary action against the employees of the Board as per the report is concerned, the Executive Director is directed to take necessary action expeditiously. Since the respondent Board is not aggreable for the payment of the amounts as claimed by the petitioner, except to the extent indicated above, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he is at liberty to approach the competent civil court seeking the reliefs. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.27.4.2009 msv