APHC010930172017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 41492/2017 Between: 1. M/S. CR18G - BSCPL JOINT VENTURE,, REP. BY ITS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, D. SRINIVAS, S/O D.V. NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 8 ROAD NO.7, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER AND DWRO, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SRBC, CIRCLE N NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SRBC DIVISION NO.2, PANYAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 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 toto issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Orders or Directions, dec as granting approval to the Respondents for recovery of the difference of cost not exceeding 5% of the total finished contract as per clause 60 (c) of the A.P. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 41492/2017 BSCPL JOINT VENTURE,, REP. BY ITS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, D. SRINIVAS, S/O D.V. NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 8-2-502/1/A, 1ST FLOOR, JIVI TOWERS, ROAD NO.7, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE CHIEF ENGINEER AND DWRO, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, KURNOOL DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SRBC, CIRCLE N NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SRBC DIVISION NO.2, PANYAM, KURNOOL 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 toto issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Orders or Directions, declaring the G.O. Rt. No.522 dated 19.09.2017 in so far as granting approval to the Respondents for recovery of the difference of cost not exceeding 5% of the total finished contract as per clause 60 (c) of the A.P. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA BSCPL JOINT VENTURE,, REP. BY ITS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, D. SRINIVAS, S/O D.V. NAIDU, 502/1/A, 1ST FLOOR, JIVI TOWERS, ...PETITIONER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, A.P. SECRETARIAT, THE CHIEF ENGINEER AND DWRO, WATER RESOURCES THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SRBC, CIRCLE NO.2, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SRBC DIVISION NO.2, PANYAM, ...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 toto issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, laring the G.O. Rt. No.522 dated 19.09.2017 in so far as granting approval to the Respondents for recovery of the difference of cost not exceeding 5% of the total finished contract as per clause 60 (c) of the A.P. 2 Standard Specifications and in not making the payments for the work done and releasing deposits totaling to Rs.31.65 crores, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith pay all the pending amounts including the final bill to the Petitioner for the work done as per the agreement No. 4SE/2006-2007 dated 19.02.2007 IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 51467 OF 2017 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 to grant interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the G.O. Rt. No.522 dated 19.09.2017 on the file of 1st Respondent including the recovery of amounts from the Petitioner's running bills/final bills payable by the Respondents IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to vacate orders dt : 08-12-2017 passed in W.P.NO. 41492 / 2017 and dismiss the writ petition as there are no merits in it and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V MAHESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs Orders or Directions declaring the G.O.Rt.No.522 dated 19.09.2017 in so far as granting approval to the Respondents for recovery of the difference of cost not exceeding 5% of the total finished contract as per clause 60 (c) of the A.P. Standard Specifications and in not making the payments for the work done and releasing deposits totaling to Rs.31.65 crores, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith pay all the pending amounts including the final bill to the Petitioner for the work done as per the agreement No.4SE/2006-2007 dated 19.02.2007 and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner was awarded contract vide package No.27/06 of Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi Flood Flow Canal from Gorakallu Reservoir to Owk Reservoir, which includes investigation, design and 1) construction of head regulator in GBR complex and fabrication, erection of gates and hydro mechanical, electrical works and other allied works for head regulator, 2) Excavation of GNSS flood flow canal (Garakallu reservoir to Owk reservoir) for reach from Kms. 0.000 to Kms. 17.000 and 3) construction of CM and CD works enroot in Kurnool District vide EPC agreement No.4SE/2006-2007, dated 19.02.2007, pursuant to an open tender notification issued by the 2nd respondent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the same, the respondents have neither measured the works completed by the petitioner nor released the amounts payable to the petitioner to a tune of Rs.3.37 crores. 4 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has already submitted representations on 28.06.2017, 01.07.2017 & 12.07.2017, requesting the respondent authorities to release the amount due to the petitioner to a tune of Rs.3.37 crores. 5. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation has furnished instructions of the Executive Engineer, SRBC Division No.2, Panyam, dated 06.09.2025, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner has failed to submit the final bill to finalize the accounts to the petitioner. In view of the same they are not in a position to finalize the amounts payable to the petitioner. 6. It appears that the petitioner has already submitted representations to the Executive Engineer on the dates mentioned as above. But, in spite of the same, no action has been initiated by the respondent authorities. 7. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that, as on today no measurement of the works has been undertaken by the respondents. 8. In view of the same, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the 4th respondent herein within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same may be considered by the 4th respondent by measuring the works already completedand also by releasing the amounts payable to the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months, 5 thereafter. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be initiated as against the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 17.09.2025 MDP