THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.27 of 2013
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order
dated 18.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge
allowing W.P.No.29289 of 2012 filed by respondent
No.1 as the writ petitioner.
3. Order dated 18.09.2012 passed in W.P.No.29289 of 2012 reads as under:
"The petitioner is a Contractor. It is stated that the respondents deducted 0.25% of the gross amount from the bills payable to the petitioner for the various works as the contributions to the National Academy of Construction as well as the Chief Minister Relief Fund.
A batch of Writ Petitions being W.P.No.23976 of 2008, etc., was filed challenging such deduction.2
Through order, dated 11.12.2008, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the batch of Writ Petitions and directed refund of 0.25% of the amount, if any recovered from the bills payable to the petitioners therein. The said order was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.279 of 2009 and batch, by judgment, dated 28.06.2011.
The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such orders, the respondents did not refund the amount.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning.
It is not in dispute that the subject matter of this Writ Petition is covered by a common order, dated 11.12.2008, rendered in W.P.No.23976 of 2008 and batch and that the said order was affirmed by the Division Bench.
Following the same, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refund to the petitioner, 0.25% of the amount, from the bills, if any recovered, 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."
4. From a perusal of the aforesaid order it is seen that respondent No.1 challenged deduction of 0.25% 3 from the bill amount as contribution to the National Academy of Construction as well as the Chief Minister Relief Fund.
5. Learned Single Judge noted that this was challenged in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being W.P.No.23976 of 2008, which was allowed vide order dated 11.12.2008. Direction was issued to the respondents in the writ proceedings to refund 0.25% deducted from the bill amount. This order was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.279 of 2009 and batch vide judgment and order dated 28.06.2011. In terms of the above decision of the Division Bench, the related writ petition was allowed.
6. From the docket order dated 22.01.2013, we find that review petition was filed in W.A.No.279 of 2009. However, learned counsel for the appellant is unable to tell us about the outcome of review petition filed in W.A.No.279 of 2009. In any case, even if review 4 petition is pending, the same would be no ground to take a different view of the matter.
7. Therefore, at this distant point of time we do not find any good reason to disturb the order of the learned Single Judge.
8. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 20.09.2022 vs