Telangana High Court
Government Of A.P vs M/S. Selgkc Joint Venture on 7 March, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.150 OF 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
12.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.34047 of 2013.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
respondents/writ petitioners, who were contractors, came up
before the learned Single Judge stating that they have worked
for the State Government and have received mobilisation
advance. Their grievance is that the State Government is
charging interest on the mobilisation advance from the date of
release of mobilisation advance till the date the final bill amount
is paid. It has been stated that the State Government, in most
of the cases, had delayed payment of bills submitted by the
contractors and for the lapse of on the part of the State
Government, contractors should not be penalised.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge is
reproduced as under:-
"It is represented by Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel
for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Finance
and Planning for the respondents 1 to 3 as well as learned
Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area
Development for respondents 4 to 7 that the lis in this writ
petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this
Court on 03.07.2012 in W.P.No.16787 of 2012.
Following the same and for the reasons alike in the
order dated 03.07.2012 in W.P.No.16787 of 2012, it is hereby
declared that the deduction of excess amount of
Rs.71,34,065/- towards interest on mobilization advance
given to the petitioner with reference to the Running Account
Bill No.7, dated 27.01.2009 up to R.A.Bill No.21, dated
24.04.2010, submitted by the petitioner is declared as illegal
and the petitioner is declared to be entitled to the payment of
the said amount from the respondents and the petitioner is
at liberty to pursue any remedies available to him under law
in support of any claim for interest, for any delay, over such
amount before a competent Civil Court, if he so
desires and is so advised.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be
no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous
petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand
closed."
The learned Government Pleader for Finance and
Planning and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation &
Command Area Development admitted before the learned Single
Judge that the controversy involved in the matter has already
been adjudicated in W.P.No.16787 of 2012 dated 03.07.2012
and in those circumstances, the writ petition was allowed.
In the considered opinion of this Court, as it is a consent
order, the question of setting aside the same does not arise.
However, if no such statement was made by the State
Government, the State Government is certainly at a liberty to
file review. No case for interference is made out in the matter.
Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_______________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
07.03.2022
JSU
