THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.22 of 2001 Dated:04.08.2011 Between: The Superintending Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project Circle, Dargamitta, Nellore. … Appel And N.Masthan Reddy. ... Respond THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.22 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The writ appeal by the Superintending Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project, is aga the order and judgment dated 29.12.1995, whereby and whereunder the writ petition f by the respondent herein was disposed of with a declaration that while he is liable to seigniorage fee, he cannot be liable to pay cess on seigniorage fee. The respondent is a registered contractor. He was awarded the contract for work of construction of R.R.Masonry side lining, concrete lining and earth work excava and formation of embankment of the tanks and canals. The petitioner entered agreement Nos.9SE/92-93, 30/SE/94-95 and 18/SE/94-95 for construction of model w on U/s from km 9-50 to 10-00 of K.R.Dam, for providing upstream side protection work f km.8-70 to 8-860 of K.R.Dam, and for construction of catchdrain and beams at +74.0 level and +79.00 M level on D/S from k.m.9.50 to 10-380 respectively. The work invo the use of sand and stones also in addition to cement, which were supplied by Government. As per the agreement, the contractee is entitled to recover the seignior charges and cess charges for materials covered under the work of the contract. purported enforcement of the said clause, the appellant deducted the charges from bills. The respondent contended that recovery of seigniorage and cess thereon un clause 35 of the agreement is illegal and unsustainable. By impugned judgment, the learned Judge held that the cess on seigniorage cannot be levied. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment, da 19.07.1995, in W.A.No.628 of 1995 confirming the judgment of the learned single Judg W.P.No.14152 of 1993 and batch. No ground is urged in the memorandum of grou warranting any deviation with the view taken by the Division Bench. The Writ Appeal is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed with any order as to costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO ________________ (K.G.SHANKAR 04.08.2011 vs