APHC010207012013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 18060/2013 Between: 1. MANAGING PARTNER, M/S SRI. AVANTIKA-SAI VENKATA(JV), NELLORE, ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3-547, LAKSHMIPURAM, NELLORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. A. SRIRAMULU. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PRL SECY TO GOVT I CAD DEPT HYD 4 OT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, I&CAD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD, 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER AVR HNSS PROJECT, HLC COMPOUND, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, AVR HNSS, CIRCLE NO.1, B CAMP, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AVR HNSS, DIVISION NO.2, OPPOSITE YMCARS ROAD, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, 5. THE PAY ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a writ, in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, declaring action of the first respondent in issuing the memo bearing memo as17895/Reforms/A1/2012 dated 1803-2013 for calculation of price adjustment in respect of fuel the formula will be calculated with US instead of '1' contrary to the agreement condition no.46.3 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 19(i))g) of Constitution of India and set aside the consequential letter bearing letter no.NEE/HNSS- 2/KNL/DB/PG/337/M dated 08-052013 issued by the Executive Engineer, AVR HNSS, Kurnool, the 4th respondent herein and pass….” 2. The present writ petition is filed declaring that the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the memo bearing Memo No.17985/ReformsA1/2012 dated 18.03.2013 for calculation of price adjustment in respect of fuel, where the formula is calculated with 0.85 instead of ‘1’, contrary to the agreement condition No.46.3, is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust, and also to set aside the consequential letter dated 08.05.2013 issued by the 4th respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent herein invited the tenders for AVR HNSS Project Package No.25 for investigation, preparation, hydraulic particulars, designs, drawings, and excavations of the HNSS main canal from KM 42000 to KM 64000, including CM & CD works and distribution system. The petitioner, having participated in the said tender, is entitled to the same and, as such, entered into an agreement dated 22.06.2005 for Package 4 No.25. The amount is Rs.56.50 crores, and the said work has to be completed within 24 months from the date of the agreement dated 25.02.2007. 4. In the said agreement, there is an escalation clause in respect of fuel. If any hike beyond 5% over the base rates occurs, it will be compensated in accordance with the formula incorporated in agreement condition No.46.3. As per clause condition No.46.3, in respect of fuels, the rates prevailing at the nearest fuel station/stations to the work spot on the last day of filing the bids will be adopted as base rates. Any hike beyond 5% over the base rates will be compensated in accordance with the formula, i.e., VF = 0.85 × PF / 100 × RI × (F1 − F0) / F0. 5. While matters stood thus, the state issued G.O.Ms.No.252, Transport, Road & Buildings (RI) Department, dated 28.08.2008, giving certain guidelines to adopt price adjustment for steel and cement, and also the formula used for adjustment based on the wholesale price index, where the coefficient of 0.85 is replaced by the absolute variation between the estimated rate and the rate fixed by the government. In the said G.O., in condition no.4 (iii), the coefficient of 0.85 is replaced by ‘1’. Accordingly, the formula incorporated in condition No.46.3 of the agreement will have to be calculated as VF = 1 × PF / 100 × RI × (F1 − F0) / F0. The respondent authorities also adopted the said G.O. for payment of fuel charges, and the petitioner received the fuel charges at the enhanced rates. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued the impugned memo dated 18.03.2013. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court various judgments of this Court in W.P.No.7950 of 2018, W.P.No.32893 of 2014, and W.P.No.32891 of 2014, wherein the memo under challenge before this Court has already been considered, and the writ petitions were allowed by setting aside the memo dated 18.03.2013 and also the consequential letter addressed by the 4th respondent, which fact was also admitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 8. Under similar lines to the above-mentioned writ petitions, this writ petition is also allowed, and the impugned memo dated 18.03.2013 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential letter dated 08.05.2013 issued by the 4th respondent are set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for escalation of the coefficient of fuel at ‘1’ in the scenario of G.O.Ms.No.252, Transport, Roads & Buildings (RI) Department, dated 28.08.2008, and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MH 05.08.2025 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 112 WRIT PETITION NO: 18060/2013 MH 05.08.2025