IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 8261 of 2003 Between: M/s. A..L.K.R. Brothers, A partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, vide Reg.No.5619/1970, rep. by its Managing Partner A.L.Ananda Rao S/o. A.Lingaiah, 43 years, rep. 5-5-611 Malakunta Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary Department of Tourism, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam. 3. Project Director & DRDA, Khammam and Chairman, Exhibition & Infrastructure Commissioner Bhadradi Utsav, 2002, Khammam. 4. Deputy Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Sub-Division, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 5. Project Director (FAC), DRDA and Special Officer, Employment Generation, Khammam. 6. Project Director, I.T.D.A., Khammam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order in Rc.No.B1/4122/2003, dated 25.03.2003, of the 3rd respondent and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to make payments in terms of the letter dated 20.04.2002 and the enclosed report of the 4th respondent and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T.SURYA SATISH G.P. FOR SOCIAL WELFARE G.P. FOR PR & RD The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 25.03.2003, of the 3rd respondent and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. It appears, on the invitation of the Tourism Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and the District Collector, Khammam, petitioner claims to have successfully executed certain works, viz., erection of temporary pandals, stalls, stages etc. at the Bhadradri Utsav-2002 on the banks of river Godavari at Bhadrachalam from 13th to 21st to April, 2002. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Sub-Division, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, the 4th respondent, on the instructions given by the Project Director & DRDA, Khammam & Chairman, Exhibition & Infrastructure Commissioner, Bhadradri Utsav, 2002, Khammam, the 3rd respondent, after verification by his office, furnished the details of erection of stalls, barricades, plywood elevation, food courts, etc., assessing the value of the work done by the petitioner as Rs.22,88,111/-. The Project Director (FAC), D.R.D.A., Khammam, in his proceedings dated 29.07.2002, has issued a certificate to the effect that the petitioner has satisfactorily attended to the works of installation/erection of Dais (stage), Arches etc. at Bhadrachalam in connection with the Bhadradri Utsav-2002 conducted between 13th to 21st April, 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner raised certain bills for payment by the respondents, and as the respondents have not settled the dues, he got issued a legal notice on 18.09.2002 to respondents 1 to 3 to settle the dues. Despite issuance of the legal notice, since the respondents have not settled the dues, the petitioner earlier filed W.P.Nos.1904, 1933 and 1950 of 2003 before this Court, and this Court, by common order dated 05.02.2003, disposed of the writ petitions directing the respondents 1 to 3 therein to consider the claims of the petitioner as stated in the legal notice dated 18.09.2002, determine the amount if any payable to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioner stating that the agreed amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs was already paid to the petitioner, that an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh for the extra work i.e., erection of (2) stalls for exhibition of the activities of DRDA and ITDA was also paid and that the petitioner is not entitled for the Horticulture Department rates as there is no such agreement between the petitioner and the Utsav Committee that such rates would be applicable, apart from stating detailed point-wise decisions taken by them. Hence, this writ petition is filed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents reiterating the same stand as was taken in the impugned order. The 4th respondent filed a separate counter also stating that, in obedience of the directions of the 3rd respondent to record the measurements of stalls erected by the petitioner in the Measurement Book, as per the rates furnished by the Director of Horticulture Department duly deducting the cost of 5000 bamboos provided by the District Administration, and to furnish the same for making payment, he submitted a report dated 20.04.2002 giving details of the works executed by the petitioner and the amount payable to the petitioner as Rs.22,88,11/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the works attended to by the petitioner were assessed as Rs.22,88,111/- in the letter dated 20.04.2002 addressed by the 4th respondent, who also certified that he physically verified the works executed by the petitioner and found them to be correct and that he even verified the measurements noted by him, and the works taken up by the petitioner were also found to be satisfactory in the certificate issued by the Project Director (FAC) D.R.D.A., Khammam, on 29.07.2002, then obviously the petitioner is entitled for the claim made by him. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, it is desirable to direct respondents 2 to 6 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the letter dated 20.04.2002 addressed by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent, wherein all the details as to the cost of the work attended to by the petitioner and the measurements thereon were indicated, and pass appropriate orders as per law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 09.07.2009 v v