APHC010758112015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 772 of 2015 Between: 1. M/S BSR INFRATECH INDIA LTD, NO.851, D-BLOCK, 15TH CROSS, SAHAKAR NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560092 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI B. SRINIVASA RAO S/O. B.VENKATA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. 115, DEFENSE COLONY, SAHAKAR NAGAR, BANGULURU - 560 092 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE (WORKS AND PROJECTS - F7) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH EDUCATIONAL WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE, DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJIV VIDYA MISSION BUILDING, HYDERABAD. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ANDHRA PRADESH EDUCATIONAL WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJIV VIDYA MISSION BUILDING, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V CH NAIDU 2. GVS KISHORE KUMAR 3. GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING (AP) 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.772 of 2015 Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayer; “….to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and declare that the action of the respondents in purporting to apply the modified price adjustment policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.1, Finance (Works and Projects - F7) Department, dated 25.02.2012 to the civil works of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent bearing Agreement Nos.49/2009- 2010, dt.25.03.2010 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to deny the benefit of price adjustment which is admissible to the petitioner under the terms and conditions of the agreement and then the Government Orders namely G.O.Ms.No.94, Transport, Road and Buildings (R1), dated 16.04.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.35 Transport, Road and Buildings (R1) Department dt.30.01.2009 without applying the changed concept of price adjustment contained in G.O.Ms.No.1, Finance (Works and Projects - F7) Department, dated 25.02.2012 and consequently allow/release all payments including refund of the disallowed amount with interest….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Case of the petitioner is that a contract was awarded to the petitioner in the year 2010 for the construction of seven (7) Permanent Social Welfare Residential School Complexes at 3 Rayachoty and Kondapuram in Kadapa District; Veldurthy and Adoni in Kurnool District; and Kannekal and Uravakonda in Anantapur District. The estimated cost of the said works was Rs.6,755.28 lakhs. In respect of the execution of the contracts, G.O.Ms.No.35, Transport, Roads & Buildings (R.I) Department, dated 30.01.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.94, Transport, Roads & Buildings (R.I) Department, dated 16.04.2008 are applicable with regard to monthly price adjustment based on the rates fixed. While the matter stood thus, the respondent authorities issued G.O.Ms.No.1, Finance (Works & Projects-F7) Department, dated 25.02.2012, with modified price adjustment policy. Clause 9 of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 25.022012 deals with price adjustment. The said Clause 9 indicates that the Departments were adopting diverse interpretations of the existing G.Os. relating to treatment of price adjustment from 0 to 5%, and after careful consideration, it was decided that henceforth, all the Departments should operate variation in rates only to the extent where it is above 5% over the estimated rates, and if the price excess is 10%, payment will be made only to the extent of 5% (10%-5%) since the contractor factors into his original bid his risk of absorbing the first 5% increase. 4 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 25.02.2012 is not in consonance with the earlier Government Orders issued in the years 2008 and 2009, and that since G.O.Ms.No.1 was issued in the year 2012, the same cannot be made applicable to the petitioner, as this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court have time and again consistently held that any Government Order issued by the Government would operate only prospectively unless specifically stated otherwise. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, with regard to the calculations that have been made, the petitioner may submit a representation to that extent, and pursuant to such representation being submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities would pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that necessary directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and as agreed by both parties, the petitioner is permitted to submit a representation to the respondent authorities within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondent 5 authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date:17.02.2026 Asr 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.772 of 2015 Date:17.02.2026 Asr