Telangana High Court
M/S. National Academy Of ... vs M/S. Coastal Engineering ... on 20 September, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
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.
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%
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
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
