APHC010115302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7486/2025 Between: Sri Ankam Srinivasa Subba Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Wirt, Direction or Order questioning the action of the respondents in not paying pending admitted bills to the petitioner for the works O M such as weed removal on Muppara phannel, Medepalli Channel from under the Jurisdiction of K.E.Canal Section, Eluru, 2) O M such as weed removal Ponangi Punta Channel from Km 0.00 to 7.600 under the Jurisdiction of K.E.Canal Section, Eluru in favour of the petitioner even though completed in the year 2024 the entire work within stipulated time is illegal and arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to clear the admitted bills pertaining to the above works and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated in the tender process. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have executed an agreement with the petitioner, for execution of work of removal of weed growth on Muppara Channel, Medepalli Channel and Ponangi Punta Channel of K.E. Canal Section during the year 2023-2024. The petitioner has completed the work. The 2nd respondent has issued quality control certificate and also issued measurement books and passed final bill for an amount of Rs.7,66,289/- (Rs.3,14,946/- + Rs.4,51,343/-). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the first and final bills were passed in the year 2024, the bills amount is not yet paid to the petitioner even after lapse of one year. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in S. Srinivas Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1 held as under: “21) In the considered opinion of this Court, withholding the amount for which the petitioner is legitimately entitled is nothing but depriving the petitioner. Due to illegal action of non-payment of the amounts promptly by clearing the bills submitted by the petitioner after execution of works, the petitioner could not feed and see the welfare of his family properly and he could not make payments to his employees/workers and he could not make payments to the material suppliers and he has to pay interests for the debts incurred by him for execution 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP)390 of works. Due to this situation, petitioner’s respect and dignity in the society will be deteriorated. 22) As such this Court holds that withholding the amount, for which the petitioner is legally entitled, is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 24) A larger bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others V. G.C.Roy opinied as extracted hereunder: “A person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages”. 25) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in J.Devendra Reddy V Kakatiya University and another held that withholding of the amount payable to the petitioner for the contract works, constitutes patent arbitrariness on the part of the respondents.” 4. This Court has observed that though the works were completed long back and the bills were passed in the year 2024, the respondents have not released the amounts so far on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Since there is no dispute with regard to the execution of work and the bills amount, the respondents should pay the bills amount on “first done first paid” basis. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of the law laid down by this Court in S. Srinivas case referred supra, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions: i) The respondents are directed to clear the bills submitted by the petitioner and release an amount of Rs.7,66,289/- (Rs.3,14,946/- + Rs.4,51,343/-) in favour of the petitioner within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with interest at 12% p.a. ii) The interest shall be computed from the date of expiry of one month from the date of submission of the bill by the petitioner till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 01.04.2025 KAS 222 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO.7486 of 2025 Date: 01.04.2025 KAS