HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 3742 of 2005 DATED: 02.02.2010 Between: V.S.V.Veeraswamy .. Petitioner And The Govt. of A.P. And four others .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that the 3rd respondent called for tenders from eligible contractors for raising “F.T.L. of Pedabapanna Dora Tank of Kondempudi village, Sankavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, for Rs.45.20 lakhs, and he was entrusted the work at 14.85% excess over the estimated rates. The petitioner states that he started the work in the month of February, 1991 and executed portion of the work relating to tank, to a tune of Rs.14.22 lakhs. He further states that he was already paid Rs.11.46 lakhs, but Rs.2.76 lakhs including E.M.D. is yet to be paid for that work. However, the petitioner was asked by the officer concerned to stop the work on the ground that the ryots in foreshore of the tank objected to the construction of protection bund through their lands contending that their fields would be submerged in the standing water of the tank if breach occurred to the protection bund. Then, the petitioner stopped the work and the 2nd respondent inspected the site and instructed the Field Officers to submit proposals for deviation of work, accordingly, they submitted proposals to the 2nd respondent, who forwarded them to the Government, but the Government has not taken any decision on that till date. Then, the petitioner submitted representation dated 29.11.2000 requesting the 4th respondent to close his contract and finalize the accounts, and accordingly, the 1st respondent-Government issued orders in Memo dated 04.06.1994 closing the contract. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the respondents are not paying his final bill amount and E.M.D. together with interest. Hence, filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. The 4th respondent-Executive Engineer filed counter affidavit stating that the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Hyderabad ordered closure of the contract and finalized the accounts of the petitioner, vide Memo No.DCE.II (OT4/SO3/150/92), dated 04.06.1994. Accordingly, the 4th respondent prepared the final bill of the petitioner and furnished to APAO/YRS/IVV/Kakinada, for payment, but the APAO/YRS/IW/Kakinada returned the bill stating that the Accountant General, A.P. Hyderabad raised two important objections on the work done by the petitioner, one, regarding extra expenditure on conveyance of the earth, and the second, regarding unfruitful outlay on the work. Subsequently, the first objection is dropped and the second objection became C & AG Para as Para No.4.8 of 1994 and discussed by PAC with Departmental Officers. Necessary replies to the objection “Unfruitful outlay on the work” were furnished to the Accountant General with a request to drop the objection stating that the expenditure incurred on the work would be fruitful after completion of the work. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are ready to clear final bills of the petitioner for payment due to him. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are ready to pay the amount due to the petitioner by clearing his final bills, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The respondents are directed to make payment to the petitioner by clearing his final bills along with Earnest Money Deposit (E.M.D.), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 2nd February, 2010 bcj