APHC010124992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6708/2025 Between: Sri. Lalitha Construction, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: JS,J W.P.No.6708 of 2025 2 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declare the inaction on part of the respondents herein not releasing the final bill amount worth of Rs.67,53,714/- for the work of “Modernization of Godavari Western Delta Drainage System Gonteru Sub-Basin from KM. 38.600 to Km 50.680 (By dredging) in Upputeru Basin in West Godavari District. (Package No.28/7/GDS/WG/2009-10) – Deleted under clause 60 (c) for the reach from KM 45.680 to 46.430 and from Km 46.930 to 48.680” vide its agreement No.7 SE/2023-24, Dt.18.12.2023, M.Book No.2087 A/008, with interest of execution of completion of works under Water Resource Department as per agreements to the petitioner till today and causing heavy loss with interest even though total works were completed as per the agreements as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16, 21 of Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents releasing the final bills of total amount worth of Rs.67,53,714/- for execution of completion of works under Water Resource Department as per agreement, to the petitioner forthwith, and to pass such other order or orders………” (in verbatim) 2. In spite of adjourning the matter several times, the respondents have not filed their counter affidavit/written instructions. JS,J W.P.No.6708 of 2025 3 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated in the tender process and stood as a lowest bidder. The 4th respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide agreement No.7 SE/2023-24, dated 18.12.2023, for execution of work of modernization of Godavari Western Delta Drainage System. The petitioner has completed the work and the respondent authorities recorded the same in the measurement book. The 5th respondent has passed the final bill on 05.03.2025 for net amount of Rs.64,57,923/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has borrowed amounts from third parties to execute the work and is paying huge interest. Though the final bill was passed on 05.03.2025, the bill amount is not yet paid to the petitioner. 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 of works. Due to this 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP)390 JS,J W.P.No.6708 of 2025 4 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.” 5. This Court has observed that though the work was completed long back and the final bill was passed on 05.03.2025, the respondents have not released the amount so far on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Since there is no dispute with regard to the execution of work and the bill amount, the respondents should pay the bills amount on “first done first paid” basis. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by this Court in S. Srinivas case referred supra, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions: JS,J W.P.No.6708 of 2025 5 i) The respondents are directed to clear the final bill submitted by the petitioner and release an amount of Rs.64,57,923/- (Rupees sixty four lakh fifty seven thousand nine hundred twenty three only) to the petitioner within a period of five (5) months 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. _________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 24th April, 2025 cbs JS,J W.P.No.6708 of 2025 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.6708 of 2025 24th April, 2025 cbs