APHC010013252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0H0 I i 02^ 7,: -o' WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY l:?:| TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTL WRIT PETITION Nos. 802-AND 14051 OF 2025 U > o WRIT PETITION NO: 802 OF 2025 Between: 1. Sri Satya Sai Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Chekuri Krishnamraju, S/o. Gopala Raju, aged about 54 years, R/o. D.No.50- 97-12, S.F.S School Back Side, Seethammadhara, Vishakhapatnam (Urban), Andhra Pradesh - 530 013. 2. Chekuri Krishnamraju, S/o. Gopala Raju, aged 54 years, R/o. D. No. 50-97-12, S.F.S School Back Side, Seethammadhara, Vishakhapatnam (Urban), Andhra Pradesh - 530 013. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 3. The Engineer-In-Chief (T. W.), 86, First floor, 40 -1, Murali Fortune Rd, Revenue Colony Park Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520010. Tribal Tadepally, Sidhartha Nagar, Labbip^tr 4. The Superintendent Engineer, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Tribal Welfare Department 5. The Executive Engineer, (T.W. Division), Tribal Welfare Department Paderu, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 531024. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith praying that in the the High Court may be pleased to grant a direction or writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents 4th Respondent in issuing termination proceedings being Progs.Rc.No. 01/2021-22/CSS-Scheme -Support to TRI/Lambasingi/Paderu/ 20.11.2024, more particularly the DB/ dated wherein the Agreement bearing Agreement No.08/2021- 22/DB/Dt.31.07.2021 dated 31.07.2021 with the Petitioners terminated, without considering the detailed was arbitrarily explanations provided by the as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and highhanded apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution Petitioner firm of India and proceedings Progs.Rc.No.01/2021- DB/ dated 20.11.2024 pending payments against the works executed by the Petitioners herein and (c) set aside the NO.15049/CL/ADVT/1/1/2021-22 dated 06.01.2025. consequently (a) set-aside the 22/CSSScheme-Support to TRI/Lambasingi/ Paderu/ (b) consequently release all the tender DIPR Ro. lA NO: 1 OF 7C\OR Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court suspend the operation of termination may be pleased to proceedings issued vide Progs.Rc.No. dated 4, pending disposal of the Writ 01/2021 -22/CSS-Scheme-Support 20.11.2024, issued by Respondent No. Petition; to TRI/Lambasingi/Paderu/DB/ lA NO: 2 OF 2n?.«^ Petition under Section 1^1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court direct the Respondents to immediately release all the may be pleased to pending payments pending disposal of the against the works executed by the Petitioners herein Writ Petition. r' lA NO: 3 OF 2a7Fi^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court suspend the operation of the tender issued vide may be pleased to proceedings DIPR Ro. NO.15049/CL/ADVT/1/1/2021-22 dated 06.01.2025 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VARUN BYREDDY'" Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5:GP FOR SOCIAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2:GP FOR FINANCE AND Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL APHC010279152025 WELFARE PLANNING" d] WRIT PETITION NO: 14051 OF 2025 Between: M/s.Sri Satya Sai Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri Chekuri Krishnam Raju, S/o.Gopaia Raju, Aged about 55 years. R/o D.No.50-97-12, Sri Satya Sai Niiayam, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam - 530013. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Chief Engineer(Tribal Welfare Department), First Floor, Murali Fortune Road Vijayawada, N.T.R. District. 3. The Revenue Colony Park, Sidhartha Nagar, Labbipet Superintendent Engineer, Visakhapatnam Town and District. T.W., Ushodaya Junction, 4. The Executive Engineer, T.W., Paderu, A.S.R. District. 5. The Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Sidhartha Nagar, Labbipet, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District. 6. C. Y. Prakash Rao, S/o name not known to Petitioner, Aged about 50 years. Contractor, Seetharama Raju Apartment, Kakinada - 533 004. 7. M/s O. B. Munu Swamy Reddy and Co, Rep by its Authorized Person, Aged about 60 years. Contractor Muddanur, Kadapa Town and District - 516001. R/o D.No.8-22-25 Flat NO.FF2, Aashyana R/o D.No.1-13, Yamavaram, ...RESPONDENTS- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action, things and Deeds of Respondents more particularly 2 nd Respondent in rejecting by Order Dated 20-04-2025 the BOAT (Extension of Agreement Time) submitted Petitioner Firm Dated 10-01-2025 and 04- 04-2025 pursuant to the Order dated 09-01-2025 by the in W.P.No.802/2025 passed by this Hon'ble High Court, which is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary against to the Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents to stop the allocation of the balance work assigned in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by proceedings in Lr.RC.No.01/2021- 22/El &CSS/Museum at Lambasingi/DB/dated 23-04-2025 and Lr.RC.No. Museum at Lambasingi/DB/dated 20-04-2025 and 24-04- 2025 and if the work is already allotted, direct to stop the said balance work further to allocate the balance of works to the Petitioner Firm by granting Extending the Agreement time (EOAT) in pursuant to the Orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court Dated 09-01-2025 in W.P.802/2025 without any penalty by directing to consider EOAT letters submitted by the Petitioner Firm on 10-01- 2025 and 04-04-2025.'" 01/2021-22/EI&CSS/ lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant STAY of the allotting balance work to Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 by proceedings in Lr. RC. No. 01/2021-22/EI&CSS/Museum at Lambasingi/DB dated 23-04-2025, Lr. RC. No. 01/2021-22/EI&CSS/Museum at Lambasingi/ DB dated 20-04-2025 and 24-04- 2025 by granting Extending the Agreement time (EOAT) as per the Order Dated.09-01-2025 passed in W.P.No.802/2025 by this Hon ble court without there being any penalty pending disposal of the Writ Petition. to lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: The Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare Department, First Floor, Murali Fortune Road, Revenue Colony Park, Sidhartha Nagar, Labbipet, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2 AND 1. M/s.Sri Satya Sai Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri Chekuri Krishnam Raju, S/o.Gopala Raju, Aged about 55 years. R/o D.No.50-97-12 Visakhapatnam - 530013. Sri Satya Sai Nilayam Seethammadhara ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ^ 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Veiagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Superintendent Engineer, Visakhapatnam Town and District. T.W. Ushodaya Junction 4. The Executive Engineer, T.W., Paderu, A.S.R. District. 5. The Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Sidhartha Nagar, Labbipet, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District. 6. C. Y. Prakash Rao, S/o years. Contractor, name not known to Petitioner, Aged about 50 R/o D.No.8-22-25, Flat No.FF2, Aashyana Seetharama Raju Apartment, Kakinada - 533 004. 7. M/s O. B. Munu Swamy Reddy and Co, Rep by its Authorized Person Aged about 60 years. Contractor, R/o D.No.1-13, Yamavaram Muddanur, Kadapa Town and District - 516001. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS^-^ praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.14051 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition. ^ lA NO: 3 OF Between: 1. C. Y. Prakash Rao, S/o Chiti Raju, Aged about R/o D.No.82225, Flat No.FF2, Aashyana Seetharama Kakinada - 533 004. Petition under Section 151 CPC 50 years. Contractor, Raju Apartment, 2. M/s O. B. Munu Swamy Reddy and Co, Rep by its Authorized Aged about 60 years, Contractor, Muddanur, Kadapa Town and District - 516001. Person R/o D.No.1-13, Yamavaram ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT Nos.6 & 7 AND 1. M/s.Sri Satya Sai Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Chekuri Krishnam Raju, S/o.Gopala Raju, Aged about 55 D.No.50-97-12, Partner, Sri years. R/o Seethammadhara, Sri Satya Visakhapatnam - 530013. Sai Niiayam ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tribai Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Chief Engineer(Tribal Welfare Fortune Road Vijayawada, N.T.R. District. 4. The Department), First Floor, Murali Labbipet, Revenue Colony Park, Sidhartha Nagar, Superintendent Engineer Visakhapatnam Town and District. T.W., Ushodaya Junction 5. The Executive Engineer, T.W., Paderu, A.S.R. 6. The Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Sidhartha Nagar, Labbipet, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District. District. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 5 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29.05.2025 praying that in the circumstances stated passed in I.A No. 01 of 2025 in W.P. No. 14051 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. NAGESH REDDY . Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7:SRI RAVULA NAGARJUNA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER APHC010013252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] D WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NOs: 802 AND 14051 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO: 802 OF 2025 Between: 1.SRI SATYA SAI CONSTRUCTIONS,, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, CHEKURI KRISHNAMRAJU, S/0. GOPALA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.50-97-12, S.F.S SCHOOL BACK SIDE, SEETHAMMADHARA, PRADESH -530 013. VISHAKHAPATNAM (URBAN), ANDHRA 2.CHEKURI KRISHNAMRAJU,, S/0. GOPALA RAJU, AGED 54 YEARS, R/0. D. NO. 50-97-12, S.F.S SCHOOL BACK SIDE, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISHAKHAPATNAM (URBAN), ANDHRA PRADESH-530 013. ...PETITIONER{S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3.THE ENGINEERINCHIEF T W, 86, FIRST FLOOR, 40 -1, MURALI TADEPALLY, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA FORTUNE RD, REVENUE COLONY PARK SIDHARTHA NAGAR, LABBIPET SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 PRADESH-520010. 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT VISHAKAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (T.W. DIVISION), TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT PADERU, VISHAKAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 531024. TRIBAL WELFARE ...RESPONDENT(S): Pstition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to grant a direction or writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly the 4th Respondent in issuing termination proceedings being Progs.Rc.No. 01/2021- 22/CSS-Scheme -Support to TRI/Lambasingi/P aderu/ DB/ dated 20.11.2024 more wherein the Agreement bearing Agreement No.08/2021- 22/DB/Dt.31.07.2021, dated 31.07.2021 with the Petitioners was arbitrarily terminated, without considering the detailed explanations provided by the Petitioner firm as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and highhanded apart from being violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently (a) set-aside the proceedings Progs.Rc.No. 01/2021-22/CSSScheme-Support to TRI/Lambasingi/ Paderu/ DB/ dated 20.11.2024 (b) consequently release all the pending payments against the works executed by the Petitioners herein and (c) set aside the tender DIPR Ro. NO.15049/CL/ADVT/1/1/2021-22 dated 06.01.2025 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation of termination proceedings issued vide Progs.Rc.No. 01/2021-22/CSS- Scheme -Support to TRI/Lambasingi/P aderu/ DB/ dated 20.11.2024, issued by Respondent No. 4, pending disposal of the Writ Petition; lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents to immediately release all the pending SRS J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 payments against the works executed by the Petitioners herein, pending disposal of the Writ Petition lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation of the tender issued vide proceedings DIPR Ro. NO.15049/CL/ADVT/1/1/2021-22dated 06.01.2025 lA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition No. 802 of 2025 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL 2.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 3.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING WRIT PETITION NO: 14051 OF 2025 Between; 1.M/S.SRI SATYA SAI CONSTRUCTIONS,, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.CHEKURI KRISHNAM RAJU, S/O.GOPALA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. R/0 D.NO.50-97-12, SRI SATYA SAI NILAYAM, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530013. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, ARNARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. Page 4 of 24 SRS J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 2.THE CHIEF ENGINEER TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT FIRST FLOOR, MURALI FORTUNE ROAD, REVENUE COLONY PARK SIDHARTHA NAGAR, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT. 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, T.W., USHODAYA JUNCTION VISAKHAPATNAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 4.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, T.W., PADERU, A.S.R. DISTRICT. 5.THE DIRECTOR, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT NAGAR, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT. SIDHARTHA 6.C Y PRAKASH RAO, S/0 NAME NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. CONTRACTOR TO PETITIONER, - R/0 D.NO.8-22-25, FLAT NO.FF2, AASHYANA SEETHARAMA RAJU APARTMENT - 533 004. KAKINADA 7. M/S O B MUNU SWAMY REDDY AND CO, REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. CONTRACTOR, 13, YAMAVARAM, MUDDANUR, KADAPA TOWN AND 516001. R/0 D.N0.1- DISTRICT - ...RESPONDENT(S); Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action, things and Deeds of Respondents more particularly 2nd Respondent in rejecting by Order Dated 20-04-2025 the BOAT (Extension of Agreement Time) submitted by the Petitioner Firm Dated 10-01-2025 and 04- 04-2025 pursuant to the Order dated 09-01-2025 in W.P.No.802/2025 passed by this Hon'bie High Court which IS liiegai, irreguiar arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary against to the Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14 19(1)(a) 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, I stop the allocation of the balance work consequently direct the Respondents to ^ assigned in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by proceedings in Lr.RC.No.01/2021- 22/Ei and CSS/Museum at Lambasingi/DB/dated 23-04-2025 and Lr.RC.No. 01/2021-22/El and CSS/ Museum at Lambasingi/DB/dated 20-04-2025 and 24-04- 2025 and if the work is already allotted, direct to stop the said balance work further the balance of works to the Petitioner Firm to allocate . . . by granting Extending the Agreement time (BOAT) in pursuant to the Orders passed by this Hon'bie High Court Dated 09-01-2025 in W.P.802/2025 without any penalty by !. r SRS.J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 directing to consider BOAT letters submitted by the Petitioner Firm on 10-01- 2025 and 04-04-2025 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 , I Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant STAY of the allotting balance work to Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 by proceedings in Lr. RC. No. 01/2021-22/EI&CSS/Museum at Lambasingi/DB dated 23-04-2025, Lr. RC. No. 01/2021-22/EI&CSS/Museum at Lambasingi/ DB dated 20-04-2025 and 24-04- 2025 by granting Extending the Agreement time (EOAT) as per the Order Dated.09-01-2025 passed in W.P.No.802/2025 by this Hon’ble court without there being any penalty pending disposal of the Writ Petition lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to to vacate the interim order dated 29.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.14051 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29.05.2025 passed in I.A No. 01 of 2025 in W.P. No. 14051 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition in the interest of justice, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SNAGESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL 2.RAVULA NAGARJUNA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER The averments in brief, in the affidavit, are; the 4‘^ respondent invited b'ds for the work “Tribal Freedom Fighters’ Museum at Lambasingi Village, SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 Chintapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District (Now Aliuri Seetha Ramu District)”. The work was sanctioned under the Support to TRI & Education Infrastructure grant, with a completion period of 22 months (i.e., 2 months for design and 20 months for execution). The petitioner firm participated in the tender process and emerged as the successful bidder. An Agreement NO.08/2021-22/DB, dated 31.07.2021 was entered into. The period for completing the work is 22 months from the date of the agreement. a) The work site is situated in a remote location, and the major of land is a wetland. It made the working conditions very challenging, requiring the petitioner firm to put in strenuous time and effort for the effective execution of works. area b) The site was physically handed over to the firm on 24.11.2021, though the agreement was signed on 31.07.2021, and a delay of 116 days was caused. The work site is situated beside R & B Road, which subsequently notified as a National Highway. Consequently, the boundary of the site got changed due to the expansion of the National Highway, and hence, the entire work had to be redone. Due to the expansion of the National Highway, coupled with the boundary change, hampered the progress of work. The orientation of the building had to be changed accordingly, and the resulted in a delay of 36 days. Further, the work was delayed due to heavy rains. The first running bill was submitted on 17.08.2022, and the cleared on 18.04.2023. The petitioner also faced challenges in procuring sand due to frequent changes in the sand policy. The petitioner communicated the same through different letters to the Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Visakhapatnam, as also the Engineer-in-Chief, Tribal Welfare, Vijayawada. The petitioner firm was allotted a reach at Gabbada Narsipatnam in Ankapalli District. When the petitioners intended to collect the was same same was c) Tribal Welfare, d) near SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 sand from the stock point, they were asked to get a letter from the Project Director, Paderu or the District Collector, Ankapalli. Since the commencement of the works, various delays have occurred, and the delays are not attributable to the petitioners. Despite the best efforts by the petitioners to accelerate the progress of the work, due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioners could not expedite the work progress. e) f) Respondents 4 and 5 issued notices to the petitioners, pointing out slow progress In the work. The time was extended to complete the work till 30.04.2024; however, the same is insufficient. The petitioners requested extension of time till 31.01.2025. The 5^^ respondent considered the request and submitted a proposal to the 4**^ respondent, however, with a penalty. As the matter stood thus, the 4^^ respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.01/2021-22/CSS-Scheme-Support to TRI/Lambasingi/ Paderu/DB dated 20.11.2024 (Ex.P1), terminating the contract under clause 60(a) of APDSS, duly forfeiting the EMD & PSD. Assailing the said proceedings the petitioner filed W.P.No.802 of 2025. an g) h) On 09.01.2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondents to measure the work already completed by the petitioner firm and determine the price payable to the petitioners and pay the same within a reasonable time; further directed the learned Government Pleader to furnish detailed measurements and value of the works completed by the petitioners and liberty was granted to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondents seeking extension of time without referring to the orders of cancellation and upon same the respondents are directed to consider the same before finalization of the tender. Further observed that the respondents are at liberty to proceed further as per the terms of the tender notice and finalisation of the tender. ■■ SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 Thereafter, the petitioners made a representation dated 10.01.2025. Petitioners made another representation dated 15.04.2025 for sanction of Extension of Agreement Time, “BOAT” up to 30.09.2025 and the same was rejected by the proceedings Lr.Rc.No.DEEI/AEEII/Support to TRI & El/ PDR/ TFFM Museum dated 20.04.2025. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed W.P.No.14051 of 2025. i) j) Thereafter, the contract was awarded to respondents 6 and 7 on 23.04.2025 and 24.04.2025. A counter-affidavit was filed by the 3'"^ respondent in W.P.No.802 of 2025 and by the 2""* respondent in W.P.No.14051 of 2025. Since the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No. 14051 of 2025 is a comprehensive one, the averments in the said counter-affidavit are noted herein. 2. it was contended, inter alia, that the Prime Minister of India, announced the establishment of Tribal Freedom Fighters’ Museums across the country. In furtherance of the initiative, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) sanctioned a total of eleven such museums across the country. One among them is the museum at Lambasingi in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The agreement stipulates the time as the essence of the contract. The construction period of the museum shall be completed by October 2025. The project is intended to be ready for inauguration by November 2025, to coincide with the commemoration of the 150*^ Birth Anniversary/ of Bhagwan Birsa Munda, as part of the ‘Janjatiya Gaurav Varsh’ celebrations. 3. 4. The Government accorded Administrative Sanction vide G.O.Rt.No.110, Social Welfare (TW-BUD) Department, dated 09.04.2020, for an amount of Rs.35.00 Crores, with the State matching share of Rs.20.00 Crores, while the GOI support is for Rs. 15.00 Crores. In pursuance of the same, tenders were invited in the reverse auction process, and the petitioner emerged as the LI bidder. An agreement was entered on 31.07.2021, with a stipulated SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 completion period of 22 months comprising 2 months for design and 20 months for execution, i.e., up to 31.05.2023. The work could not be completed within the original agreement period. Because of the circumstances, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.41 dated 05.12.2023, sanctioned Extension of Time (EOT) up to 30.04.2024, without Liquidated Damages. 5. 6. Despite the extension, the petitioners could not complete the work, and therefore, the 4*^ respondent issued notice on 28.12.2023 to the petitioners to gear up the progress and complete the work as per the milestones. The 3"'^ respondent issued notice on 23.12.2023 as to why tentative liquidated damages for an amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs shall not be imposed and further directed to complete the work by 30.04.2024. Another notice dated 17.01.2024 was issued by the respondent. Thereafter, the 3'’'^ respondent issued a final notice on 16.02.2024. On 24.02.2024, the 5**^ respondent and Engineer-in-Chief visited the site personally and inspected the work, reviewed the ground reality and the progress of the work. During the said review, the petitioners promised to lay the pending museum block 1 ground floor slab by 02.03.2024 and the restaurant first floor slab in another 10 days. The 5‘^ respondent also asked for an action report. The 4**" respondent sent a report to the 3^^ respondent on 06.03.2024, informing no response from the petitioner firm and there is no hope that the work would be completed by 30.04.2024. The 3"'^ respondent issued final notice on 03.04.2024. The petitioner firm requested a further proposal seeking 2'^'^ Extension of Agreement Time (EOAT) up to 31.01.2025 without liquidated damages estimated @ Rs. 18.03 lakhs. 7. 8. The Deputy Executive Engineer vide letter dated 17.09.2024 reported that the petitioner firm is not executing the work and recommended for cancellation of the work. The 4‘^ respondent submitted a detailed report to the 3’’^ respondent. The petitioner resorted to delayed tactics, referring to the sand SRS J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 issues, requesting the respondents to arrange sand by letters dated 28.09.2024, 04.10.2024, 02.11.2024, 11.11.2024 and 15.11.2024, by which time the Extension of Agreement Time (BOAT) was completed by 30.04.2024. 9. As the matter stood thus, the 3'"'^ respondent submitted a proposal to the 2"'^ respondent by letter dated 03.11.2024, to cancel the agreement. The petitioners, being aware of the said proposal, submitted a representation dated 07.11.2024, requesting further time up to 31.03.2025, without imposition of liquidated damages. 10. By the proceedings impunged in W.P.No.802 of 2025, the contract determined. The committee, consisting of respondents 1, 2, 5 and the Executive Director, TCR & TM resolved to determine the contract and to finalise new tenders for completion of the balance work. Thereafter, the respondent floated fresh tenders for the balance work vide DIPR RO NO.15049/CL/ADVT/1/1/2021-22 dated 06.01.2025. was 11. The petitioner firm made a representation dated 10.01.2025, in pursuance of the order in W.P.No.802 of 2025 dated 09.01.2025 and sought time up to 30.09.2025 without liquidated damages. The 3'^'^ respondent sent a 2"^ Extension of Agreement Time (BOAT) proposal to the Engineer-in-Chief detailing the entire developments, also submitted a calculation sheet with detailed liquidated damages, arrived at Rs. 1,15,37,568/- vide letter dated 02.03.2025 under intimation to the petitioners. The 4*'' respondent also submitted a detailed report to the O'"' respondent concerning the measurement of work done by the petitioner firm and the price to be payable to the petitioner firm in compliance with the interim order dated 09.01.2025 in W.P.No.802 of 2025. Based on the executed quantities, the value of the work completed assessed at Rs.8,60,89,958/-, while the value as per the schedule of payment stands at Rs.8,70,19,075/-. After applying the requisite statutory deductions to the schedule of payment amount, the net payable amount to the contractor was arrived at Rs.7,98,14,651/-, out of which Rs.7,86,80,764/-, was already was ■•Vi" SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 .t paid and the bills for the balance Rs. 11,33,887/-, though uploaded for processing, could not be paid as per Clause 60(A) of APDSS, due to determination of the agreement as the balance amount stands forfeited. A report was submitted to the 3'‘'‘ respondent on 05.04.2025. rd The petitioner, despite notice dated 02.03.2025, issued by the 3 respondent, regarding the proposed liquidated damages to be levied in the Extension of Agreement Time (BOAT), did not choose to give any reply. The proposal, was however, placed before the committee and the same was rejected. 12. nd event of consideration of the 2 The balance work was divided into three parts and entrusted to respondents 6 and 7. Respondents 6 and 7 commenced the balance work and finished the slab work of the 3'^^ block of the said museum complex. Due to the interim order granted in W.P.No.14051 of 2025 dated 29.05.2025, further continuation has been stopped. Clause 23 of the Agreement envisages a procedure for the settlement of disputes, and any claim above Rs.50,000/- is to be settled before the Competent Civil Court. The petitioner firm, without availing the remedy, approached the High Court. The petitioner firm resorted to various irregularities while executing works in the Department of Tribal Welfare, and various complaints were lodged, as a result inquiry was initiated by the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer (l/c), Visakhapatnam, and the same is pending. W.P.(PIL).No.167 of 2024 was filed and the same was disposed of on 11.12.2024, recording the initiation of inquiry by the Vigilance Department. 13. The petitioner firm was given ample opportunity to complete the project, and the Extension of Agreement Time (BOAT) granted, expired on 30.04.2024. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 14. A reply affidavit was filed by the writ petitioners reiterating the averments in the writ affidavit. 15. SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 assisted by Sri Nagesh petitioners; Sri Yathindar official respondents and Sri appearing for respondents 6 and 7 i 16. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel Reddy and Varun Bireddy learned counsels for the Varma, learned Special Government Pleader for R. Nagarjuna, learned counsel in I W.P.No.14051 of 2025. 17. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the determination of the contract, without considering the explanation submitted illegal and arbitrary. He would submit that by the petitioner is the petitioners could not complete the work due to non-availability of sand; change of alignment; delay in making payment, heavy rains and handing over of site belatedly. He would also point out that despite interim order in W.P.No.802 of 2025, the not taken in the presence of the petitioners. measurements were He would also submit that the was not considered. The appropriate authority got the power to review the earlier order of determination due to the interim order. However, the authority has recommendation made by the Executive Engineer not exercised the same. 18. Learned Special Government Pleader would contend that time is essence of the contract. As per the agreement, the time fixed for work is 22 months i.e. by 31.05.2023. Thereafter time 30.04.2024. Despite the extension of time, the work. The Superintending Engineer and Executive the petitioners requesting to gear up the work. However, even after extension of time, the petitioner failed to complete the work. completion of was extended up to petitioner failed to complete the I - Engineer issued notices to i After the final notice, dated I the letter dated 03.04.2024 made representation 16.02.2024 issued by the Executive Engineer and issued by the Superintending Engineer, the petitioner dated 13.04.2024 with untenable grounds, seeking extension of time. Thereafter also the petitioner could not complete the work. Eventually, the contract was determined by proceedings dated 20.11.2024. In pursuance of the interim order, the petitioner made representation, which was considered and rejected by the committee. He would also submit that the was dividedinto three parts. He would also submit that rest of the work the amount payable to SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 the petitioner was paid to him. He would submit that no rejoinder was filed by the petitioner refuting the said contention. Fresh tenders were called on 06.01.2025 and respondents 6 and 7 were awarded contracts on 23.04.2025 and 24.04.2025 and they executed work worth of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Thereafter, W.P.No.14051 of 2025 was filed on 27.05.2025. The petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing the proper remedy. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. The points for consideration are: 19. 1. Whether the determination of the contract by proceedings dated 20.11.2024, suffers from arbitrariness? 2. Whether the termination order dated 20.04.2025 in pursuance of interim order dated 09.01.2025, in W.P.No.802 of 2025, suffers from any illegality? Before delving into the alleged arbitrariness vis-a-vis determination of the contract and the subsequent rejection order, let this Court first examine the sequence of events. The Hon’ble President of India, in his address on the eve of Independence Day in 2016 announced establishment of Tribal Freedom Fighters’ Museums across the country. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs sanctioned total 11 Museums across the country and one such Tribal Museum approved for establishment at Lambasingi, Andhra Pradesh. The Museum shall be completed by October, 2025 and will be ready for inauguration by November, 2025 to coincide with the commemoration of 150 birth anniversary of Bhagawan Birsa Munda as part of Janjatiya Gaurav Divas celebrations. 20. 21. was th In the said auction process, the petitioner emerged as LI bidder. Agreement was entered on 31.07.2021 with a stipulated completion period of 22. Page 14 of 24 SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 22 months (two months for design and 20 months for execution) i.e. by 31.05.2023. 23. No doubt site was handed over to the petitioner on 24.11.2021. The petitioner pleaded hostile conditions like change of alignment, heavy rains, non-availability of the sand and delay in payment, for non completion of work within the stipulated time. Considering the above conditions, the time extended up to 30.04.2024 vide G.O.Rt.No.401 Social Welfare (TW-BUD- TSP) Department dated 05.12.2023, without liquidated damages. After the time was extended, the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer issued notices, dated 23.12.2023 and 28.12.2023, requesting the petitioners to gear up the progress of work and to submit a work schedule. Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer issued another notice dated 17.01.2024, requesting the petitioner to gear up the progress of work and to submit a work schedule. A final notice was issued on 16.02.2024, requesting to gear up the progress of work within three days, by duly submitting the work schedule for upward submission to the Superintending Engineer. was 24. 25. In the letter/notice dated 16.02.2024, it was observed as follows; “During state level review meeting held on 06.02.2024 and 07.02.2024 by the Principal Secretary Tribal Welfare, Vijayawada along with Director of Tribal Welfare, Engineer-In-Chief, Tribal Welfare and Managing Director, TCP & TM, the authorities expressed very much dissatisfaction about poor progress of work and clearly instructed to take steps to complete the work by 30.04.2024 since Ministry of Tribal Welfare, Govt, of India is continuously pressing for early completion of work and the same was also informed to you and requested to gear up the work. Page 15 of 24 SRS J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 But even after repeated notices and personal reminders no response from your end and not sho\A/n any considerable progress in the work. Hence, you are finally requested to gear up the progress within 3 days and to take immediate steps for completion of work within the sanctioned EOAT period i.e. by 30.04.2024 duly submitting the work schedule for onward submission to the Superintending Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Visakhapatnam. Please treat this letter as final notice from this office and no further correspondence will be made in this regard if there is no response from your end and the matter will be reported to higher authorities for initiating suitable action as per agreement conditions.” 26. Since there is no reply from the petitioner, the Executive Engineer submitted a report dated 06.03.2024 to the Superintending Engineer to take necessary action. Taking into consideration the report submitted by the Executive Engineer, the Superintending Engineer issued a notice dated 03.04.2024, wherein it was mentioned as under: “Hence you are finally requested to resume the work and to show progress within sanctioned EOAT period i.e., 30.04.2024, from the date of receipt of this final notice and instructed to inform what action you have taken on the notices to this office if necessary EOAT proposals along with revised work schedule through the Executive Engineer, TW, Paderu for taking further necessary action. Otherwise your agreement will be determined as per agreement conditions, duly forfeiting the EMD & PSD to the Government account.” The Deputy Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Chintapalli, addressed a letter dated 17.09.2024 to the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu, stating that the petitioner firm is not executing the "X - ■ work and recommending for cancellation of the agreement as there is no further hope that the petitioner will complete the work. The authority 27. Page 16 of 24 SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 further recommended to entrust the balance work as per 60 (c) of APDSS to any eligible new agency. The Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu, addressed a letter dated 17.09.2024 to the Superintending Engineer on the same aspect. 28. It is pertinent to mention here that in both the letters a mention was made about the petitioner’s request for sanction of the second EOAT up to 31.08.2024 with a liquidated amount of Rs. 18.03 lakhs, and that there was no change in the work progress, despite the proposed second extension also having expired. 29. Thereafter petitioner addressed letters dated 28.09.2024, 04.10.2024, 02.11.2024, 11.11.2024 and 15.11.2024 to the Executive Engineer regarding supply of sand. The petitioner also addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare, requesting to cancel the termination order and grant time up to 31.03.2025, even though the determination was made on 20.11.2024. 30. Thus, as seen from notices addressed by the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer, the petitioner was reminded regarding progress in the work; however, the petitioner at no point submitted its explanation. The petitioner submitted neither explanation nor a work schedule till the completion of the first extension period. As seen from the correspondence, no progress was made even till the proposed second extension i.e. Superintending Engineer, considering all the aspects, by proceedings dated 20.11.2024, determined the contract and forfeited EMD and FSD. an by 31.08.2024. The 31. This Court reiterates that, as per the agreement, the construction should be completed by 30.05.2023. However, the first extension granted by G.O.Rt.No.401 dated 05.12.2023 up to 30.04.2024. Despite the extension of time and the reminders by the Executive Engineer and was 1 SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 Superintending Engineer to gear up the progress of the work, the petitioner failed to respond to any of the letters/notices. 32. Clause No.2 (x) of the agreement envisages that the time shall be essence in the performance of the Parties’ respective obligations. If any time specified is extended for the reasons specified in the Agreement, such extension shall also be of the essence. 33. Clause 24.1 of the agreement prescribes that the total period of completion is 22 months, inclusive of the monsoon period. Clause 24.11, which deals with delays and extension of time, also prescribes that time is the essence of the contract. It further stipulates granting of extension of time with liquidated damages, for the reasons attributable to the contractor by the Chief Engineer, TW up to six months and beyond six months by the next higher authority. 34. 35. Thus, the clauses in the agreement make time the essence of the contract. However, the petitioner could not complete the work. Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 envisages the effect of failure to perform at a fixed time in a contract, where time is of the essence. Section 55 of the Contract Act is extracted herewith: 36. 55. Effect of failure to perform at fixed time, in contract in which time is,^.essentiai.—When a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing at or before a specified time, or certain things at or before specified times, and fails to do any such thing at or before the specified time, the contract, or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee, if the intention of the parties was that time should be of the essence of the contract. Effect of such failure when time is not essential. Effect of acceptance of performance at time other than that agreed upon.— SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 A plain reading of the extracted portion would indicate that when a party to the contract promises to do certain thing at or before a specified time, the contract, or so much of it as has not been performed, it becomes voidable at the option of the promise, if the parties intended that, time should be of the essence of the contract. 37. 38. The agreement also stipulates that all claims above Rs.50,000/- are to be settled by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction by way of Civil suit and not by arbitration. The petitioner, instead of approaching the Civil Court, filed the above writ petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Scope of Judicial Review under Art 226 of the Constitution of India aua the Contracts 39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagadish Mandal v. State of Orissa*, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under; “22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. or error in (2007) 14 see 517 SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: “the decicion is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached”; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” In State of Kerala and Others v. M.K. Jose^ the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the scope of judicial review vis-a-vis termination of contract, commented on the course adopted by the High Court and observed as follows at para No. 12; no or 40. “... This kind of orders in a contractual matter, in our considered view, is ill-conceived. They not only convert the controversy to a disturbing ^(2015) 9 see 433 SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 labyrinth, but encourage frivolous litigation. The competent authority might have mentioned that more than 50% work remained to be done but that should not have prompted the Appellate Bench hearing the intra-court appeal to appoint a Commission of two advocates and granting them liberty to take assistance of a competent engineer. ... As the Report would show, the Commission of two advocates have taken assistance of a retired Assistant Executive Engineer and submitted the Report. Though, the learned counsel for the State had not objected to the same, yet we really fail to fathom how a writ jurisdiction can be extended to cause a roving enquiry through a Commission and rely on the facts collected without granting opportunity to the State to file objections to the same and in the ultimate eventuate, cancel the order of termination of contract. What precisely was the quantum of work done and whether there had been a breach by the owner or the contractor, are required to be gone into by the appropriate legal forum.” The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed at para No. 13, as under: “13. A writ court should ordinarily not entertain a writ petition, if there is a breach of contract involving disputed questions of fact. The present case clearly indicates that the factual disputes are involved.” 41. In State of Bihar and others v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.^ the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under at para No.3: 3. ... It is to be reiterated that writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper proceedings for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it was open to the respondent to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of contract. It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue writ, but ordinarily that ^(2002)1 see 216 SRS J W,P,Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 would be a good ground in refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226.” 42. In National highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises and another ^ the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the maintainability of writ petition arising out of breach of contract and observed as under at para 6; “...It is settled law that disputes relating to contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been so held in the cases of Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil [(2000) 6 SCC 293], State of U.P. V. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. [(1996) 6 SCC 22] and Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 116] . This is settled law. The dispute in this case was regarding the terms of offer. They were thus contractual disputes in respect of which a writ court was not the proper forum. Mr Dave, however, relied upon the cases of Verigamto Naveen v. Govt, of A.P. [(2001) 8 SCC 344] and Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India [(1986) 3 SCC 247]. These, however, are cases where the writ court was enforcing a statutory right or duty. These cases do not lay down that a writ court can interfere in a matter of contract only. Thus on the ground of maintainability the petition should have been dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the authority failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner, properly and the determination of the contract, by the respondent authorities suffers from ‘illegal malice’. 43. In State of A.P. and Others v. Goverdhanlal PittP and BPL Ltd., v. S.P. Gururaja®, the Hon’ble Apex Court the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that ‘Legal malice’ or ‘malice in law’ means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. Where malice is attributed to the State, it 44. ’(2003) 7 see 410 ^ (2003) 4 see 739 ^ (2003) 8 see 567 SRS.J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 can never be a case of personal ill will or spite on the part of the State. It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object. It means exercise of statutory power for “purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended”. It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts. 45. Passing an order for an unauthorized purpose, constitutes malice in law, as held in Punjab SEB Ltd. v. Zora singh’ and in Union of India v. V. Ramakrishnan^ 46. In the case at hand, the petitioner failed to demonstrate legal malice or malice in law on the part of the respondent authorities while determining the contract and rejecting the applications made by the petitioner. The authorities. after issuing notices and final notices, determined the contract after the expiry of the BOAT. In fact, the series of letters addressed by the authorities demonstrate the importance vis-a-vis time as the essence of contract. The petitioner, having signed the agreement, must be aware of the clauses in the agreement. 47. As discussed supra, despite the extension granted to the petitioner,the petitioner could not complete the work. The petitioner did not even respond to the notices issued by the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer. The contract itself prescribes that time is the essence of the contract. After issuing notices, the authority finally determined the contract. In the absence of any material available on record regarding malice, this Court is not persuaded by the submission of the learned Senior Counsel regarding malice in law. 48. Clause 24.4 of the agreement prescribes stages of the progress, as extracted hereunder: ’ (2005) 6 see 776 ^ (2005) 8 see 394 SRS.J W,P.Nos,802 and 14051 of 2025 End of month 5% End of 3"^ month 5% End of 5 month 10% End of month 10% End of 9'’^ month 15% End of 12 month 15% End of 15 month 15% End of 18 month End of 22'^'^ month 10% 10% 49. As seen from the correspondence referred to supra, the petitionercould not complete more than 50% before determining the contract. After the contract was determined, the petitioner filed W.P.No.802 of 2025, and a coordinate bench of this Court directed the respondent authorities to measure the work completed and determine the price payable to the petitioner within a reasonable time. 50. 51. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in W.P.No.14051 of 2025, at para 25, it was specifically mentioned about the amount payable and paid to the petitioner and forfeiture under clause 60(A) of APDSS due to determination of the agreement. After deductions, the amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.7,98,14,651/- out of which Rs.7,86,80,764/- was paid and the bills for the balance amount of Rs.11,33,887/-, though uploaded, were not processed as per clause 60 (A) of APDSS. No rejoinder was filed refuting the said averment in para 25 of the counter affidavit. 52. After the determination of the contract, a fresh tender was floated by dividing the work into three parts. The contract was awarded to respondents 6 and 7, and they completed the work worth Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Thus, a third- party interest has already been created, and work is in progress. One should not be oblivious of the importance of the project. nr SRS,J W.P.Nos.802 and 14051 of 2025 Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any irregularity or arbitrariness on the part of the respondent authorities in determining the contract and subsequent rejection by the committee. The observations, if any, made in the order will not come in the way of the petitioners in case the petitioners approach the Civil Court as per the clauses of the agreement. 53. 54. 55. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BAB DEPUTY REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICEFt To 1. One CC to Sri Varun Byreddy, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri S. Nagesh, Reddy, Advocate[OPUCl 3. One CC to Sri Ravula Nagarjuna, Advocate[OPUC]^'^ 4. Two CC’s to the Advocate General, High Court of A.P Amaravati[OUT] 5. Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradeshf [OUT] I 6. Two CCs to GP for Finance and Planning, High Court of Andhra* Pradesh [OUT] | 7. Two CD Copies. I at ssb I HIGH COURT DATED;16/07/2025 COMMON ORDER WP Nos. 802 and 14051 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS