APHC010118302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3459] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.6278 OF 2025 Between: A. Venkata Rami Reddy --- Petitioner and The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Finance and Planning,Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and 4 others --- Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava Counsel for the respondents : G.P for Irrigation & CAD G.P for Finance and Planning The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: “………..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the admitted bill of Rs.3,47,320/- towards (1.) Repairs and strengthening of ayacut road from Moolasenurastha to Devynimanyam Rasta from KM 0.000 KM to 3.000 near Koratamaddi (v), Gadivemula (M) under NC JS,J WP No.6278/2025 2 Programme, vide Agreement No.625/2018-19 dated 19-04-2018, (2). Repairs and strengthening of ayacut road from Karnalarastha to Rangoni Rasta from KM 0.000 KM to 3.000 near Koratamaddi (v), Gadivemula (M) under Neeru-Chettu Programme, vide Agreement No.627/2018-19 dated 19-04-2018 and (3). Repairs and strengthening of ayacut road from Kantonipolamrastha to Karnalarastha KM 0.000 KM to 3.000 near Koratamaddi (v), Gadivemula (M) under NC Programme, vide Agreement No.636/2018-19 dated 19-04-2018 entered with the 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary and violation of Articles 14, 19(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith release the payments of above bill amount along with interest and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper …………” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he has participated in the tender process and stood as successful bidder for three works vide Agreement Nos.625/2018-19, 627/2018-19 and 636/2018-19, dated 19.04.2018, entered with respondent No.4 in the year 2017-18, as detailed in the affidavit of the petitioner. The petitioner has completed all the contract works under the supervision of respondent No.4 within the stipulated time. The respondent authorities, after satisfying with the works of the petitioner, have certified, audited the completed works, issued the Quality Control and Experience Certificates and M-books and as such paid the substantial amounts in all the three works but unjustifiably JS,J WP No.6278/2025 3 withheld the admitted final bill amount of Rs.3,47,320/- without releasing the said amount to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has borrowed amounts from third parties to execute the works and is paying huge interest. Though the works were completed long back, the final bill amount is not yet released to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in S. Srinivas v. 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 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. 23) …………….. 24) A larger bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others V. G.C.Roy opined as extracted hereunder: 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP) 390 JS,J WP No.6278/2025 4 “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, the respondents have not released the final bill amount so far on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Since there is no dispute with regard to the works and the bill amounts, the respondents should pay the bill amounts on “first done first paid” basis. Apart from that, priority or preference should be given to those, whose works are below Rs.50.00 lakhs as they are the affected persons. 5. In view of my foregoing discussion and the law laid down by this Court in S. Srinivas (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 the payment of Rs.3,47,320/- within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with interest at 12% p.a. JS,J WP No.6278/2025 5 ii) The interest shall be computed from the date of expiry of one (1) month from the date of submission of the bills 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. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 07.04.2025 DSH