Meta Pixel
CNR: --
PENDING

GUNURU ATCHIBABU vs The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Case NumberWP 10597/2023
Date of Filing24 Apr 2023
Case TypeWP
Last Hearing4 May 2023
State--
City--
Year of Filing2023

Party Details

Petitioner
  • GUNURU ATCHIBABU
Respondent
  • The State of Andhra Pradesh
  • State of Andhra Pradesh
  • The Commissioner
  • The EngineerinChief
  • The Director of works and Account Officer
  • The District Collector
  • Superintending Engineer
  • Executive Engineer
  • The Pay and Accounts Officer

Case Summary

GUNURU ATCHIBABU filed Case No. WP 10597/2023 in the High Court Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Apr 2023 against The State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Andhra Pradesh. The case has had one hearing so far. The case is currently pending. 1 order has been issued in this matter.

Hearing History (1)

  • 4MAY 2023
    Next Hearing

    Judge: N/A

Orders (1)

Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.

RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10597 of 2023 ORDER: The petitioner has undertaken various contracts for Construction of community halls & Providing infrastructure facilities to the community hall in Chodavaram.

Earnest money deposits and security deposits were deducted in the course of payment of running bills.

These amounts were to be returned upon completion of the contract.

The contract stipulated that the earnest money deposit and security deposit would be returned after elapse of 3+24 months.

3.

In the present case, the petitioner has completed their contracts in the years 2016 itself.

However, the earnest money deposits and security deposits are not being released.

Aggrieved by the non release of these funds, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

4.

The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, on instructions, submits that the earnest money deposits and security deposits are to be released only upon finalisation of 2 the bills of the contractors and as the bills of the petitioner has not yet been finalised, the deposits were not being released.

5.

The learned Government Pleader would contend, on the terms of the agreement that the EMD and security deposits was not paid by the petitioner directly.

They were deducted from the running bills.

He would further submit that the terms of the agreement stipulate that the said deposits are to be retained by the employer for a period of 3+24 months which would mean that the employer is entitled to retain the deposits for a period of 27 months from the date of deduction.

6.

A perusal of the agreement shows that the period of 3+24 months has been fixed as defect liability period.

This would mean that the period of 27 months is to be calculated from the date of completion of the work.

In such circumstances, the said period of 27 months has elapsed long back as the contracts have been completed in the years 2016 itself.

16 itself.

In such circumstances, the question of the deposits being retained by the respondents would not arise.

3 7.

Consequently, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to return the security deposits and earnest money deposits retained by the respondents, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ R.

RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

04.05.2023 BSM/DSV 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.

RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10597 of 2023 04-05-2023 BSM/DSV