IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos:8490, 15459, 15978, 22285 and 22286 of 2005 WRIT PETITION No:8490 of 2005 M/s. Srinivasa Reddy Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner, D. Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Subbi Reddy, Aged about 39 Years, R/o. Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 2 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 3 The Pay and Accounts Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. WRIT PETITION NO : 15459 of 2005 Between: M/s.Gautham & Co., rep., by its Managing Partner Mr.G.Gautham Reddy, s/o Anja Reddy, r/o Bommakalu Village, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 2 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 3 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Adilabad, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. WRIT PETITION NO : 15978 of 2005 Between: M/s.Gautham & Co., rep., by its Managing Partner, Mr.G.Goutham Reddy, s/o Anja Reddy, r/o Bommakallu Village, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 2 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 3 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Adilabad, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. WRIT PETITION NO : 22285 of 2005 Between: M/s. Venkata Panduranga Constructions I. Jangannadha Raju, S/o. Bangar Raju R/o. Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Dt. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer Panchayati Raj Circle, Zilla Parishad Compound Khammam Khammam Dt. 2 The Executive Engineer, Panchayati Raj Division Bhadrachalam Khammam Dt. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. WRIT PETITION NO : 22286 of 2005 Between: M/s. Venkata Panduranga Consturctions, Rep. by its Proprietor, I. Jagannadha Raju, S/o. Bangarraju, Aged about 44 Years, R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Panchati Raj, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 2 The Executive Engineer, Panchayati Raj Division, Palakonda, Srikakulam district. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.8490 of 2005 is filed for the following substantive relief: “Under the above circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the Respondents in seeking to apply the seignorage charges in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.217 dt. 29-09- 2004 and respective of the work entrusted to the Petitioner called Road Works under PMGSY Package No. AP II A- 1802 (5 works) i) Road from NH5 to Thatiparthi Estimate Cost Rs. 44.65 Lakhs ii) Formation of the road from NH5 to Eguvuru Estimate Cost Rs. 18.55 Lakhs, iii) Road from Ippili Road to Kanugulavanipeta Estimate Cost Rs. 17.66 lakhs, iv) B.T. Road from R & B Road to Amalpadu Estimate Cost Rs. 44.00 lakhs and v) B.T. Road from V.P. Road to Gadabapeta (Via) Komera, Estimate Cost Rs. 75.68 lakhs, an agreement No.7/2004-2005, dt. 26-06-2004 was also entered into with Petitioner by the 1st Respondent for the execution and completion of the above Work vide agreement No. 7/2004- 2005, dt. 26-06-2004 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to recover the seigniorage charges in accordance with the charges mentioned in the agreement or in the alternative to change the enhanced rates to the value of the estimate.” W.P.No.15459 of 2005 is filed for the following substantive relief: “Under the above circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not considering the representation of the petitioner and contemplating to recover the Seigniorage charges (Earth Work) at the enhanced rates as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminative and declare that the respondents have to deduct the Seigniorage charges (Earth Work) at the old rates as mentioned in the Agreement No.29-SE-2003- 2004 dated 27-02-2004 in respect of the work relating to Road from Tandra to Korkal in Adilabad District PMGSY, Phase-III, Package No.0122 or in the alternative direct the respondents to revise the estimates by providing reimbursement of the difference in seigniorage charges as per G.O.Ms.No.217, 29-09-2004.” W.P.No.15978 of 2005 is filed for the following substantive relief: “Under the above circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not considering the representation of the petitioner and contemplating to recover the Seigniorage charges at the enhanced charges as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminative and declare that the respondents have to deduct the Seigniorage charges at the old rates as mentioned in the Agreement No.46-SE-2004-2005 dated 15-10- 2004 in respect of the work Construction of Two (02) Rural Roads (1) R/F R&B road to Kadili Papeswar Temple (2) Road from Mudhole to Dharmabad in Adilabad District or in the alternative direct the respondents to revise the estimates by providing reimbursement of the difference in Seigniorage charges as per G.O.Ms.No.217, 29-09-2004.” W.P.No.22285 of 2005 is filed for the following substantive relief: “Under the above circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner and seeking to apply the seigniorage charges for earth work in accordance with G.O.Ms No. 217, dated 29.9.2004 and in respect of the works entrusted to the Petitioner called a) Road from Ramachandrapuram to Gommugudem, b) Road from PWD road to Gundamoru, c) Road from PWD road to Nallakunta, d) Road from PWD road to Barlamadugu e)Road from PWD road to Kammaraigudem, f) Road from PWD road to Yellappagudem called PMGSY Phase-III-P.R. Circle, Khammam Packag No. A.P. III A 0803 (6works estimate Rs139.61 lakshs, at khammam dt. to an agreement was also entered into with petitioner by the 1st respondent for the execution and completion of the above work vide agreement NO.6/2004-05, dated 21.6.2004 at khammam Dt. as arbitrary illegal and vilative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to recover the Seigniorage charges in accordance with the charges mentioned in the agreement or in the alternative to charge the enhanced rates to the value of the estimate.” W.P.No.22286 of 2005 is filed for the following substantive relief: “Under the above circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the representation of the Petitioner and seeking to apply the Seigniorage charges for earth work in accordance with G.O.ms.No. 217, dt. 29-9-2004 and in respect of the works entrusted to the Petitioner called 1) Formation of Road from Budarsingi to Gowdaguranti -Estimate Cost Rs. 34.27 lakhs, 2) R & B Road to Mahadevipuram to Gattumeedavooru -Estimate Cost Rs. 11.51 lakhs, 3) Forming and Gravelling the Road Polla Road to Pandra (V) - Estimate Cost Rs. 39.59 lakhs, 4) Forming and Gravelling the Road from Pandra Roadt to Ramangaram (V) - Estimate cost Rs. 29.00 lakhs, 5)Forming and Gravelling the Road frm Samarilli to Eguvaseedhi-Estimate Cost Rs. 17.16 lakhs, 6) Forming and Gravelling Road from Guddimedhaguda to Kummaragandli-Estimate Cost Rs. 14.95 lakhs, 7) Forming and Graveeling the Road P.H. Road to Jonaga -Estimate Cost Rs. 19.02 lakhs, 8) Forming and Gravelling the Road from Putikalvalasa Road to Benarai - Estimate cost of Rs. 28.41 lakhs and 9) Forming and Gravelling the Road from P.H. Road to Vajjaiguda (V) - Estimate Cost of Rs. 27.73 lakhs called PMGSY Package No. A.P. III-1801 (9 Works) Estimate Rs. 221.62 lakhs at Srikakulam District, to an agreement was also entered into with Petitioner by the 1st Respondent for the execution and completion of the above work vide agreement No. 5/2004-05 dt. 10-6-2004 at Srikakulam district as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to recover the Seigniorage charges in accordance with the charges mentioned in the agreement or in the alternative to charge the enhanced rates to the value of the estimate.” At the hearing, Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though in pursuance of the interim orders, the respondents did not deduct the seignorage charges from the current pending bills, subsequently, they deducted the disputed seignorage charges from the subsequent bills. He, therefore, stated that the lis raised in these writ petitions does not survive for consideration. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submitted that if the enhanced seignorage charges, which are questioned in the writ petitions, have not been recovered, the respondents may be given liberty to recover the same from the final bills or if the bills have already been paid, through any other legal process. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the respondents to recover the disputed seignorage charges in the event they have already not been recovered. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, interim orders are vacated, WPMP.Nos.11221, 19634, 20307, 28559 and 28560 of 2005 are dismissed and WVMP.No.732 of 2006 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd JULY, 2008. kvni