APHC010130032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 6770/2025 Between: M/s. Rcnr Constructions, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S DUSHYANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING This Court made the following: JS,J W.P.No.6770 of 2025 2 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ or Order or a direction, more particularly in the form of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not making payment of Rs.18,04,054/- due to the petitioner for the execution of works under providing CC walls to the Mirapakunta Kalavua of KCC System in Pullareddy Nagar in Bhadripalli Village in Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District, vide agreement dated 22.06.2023, as highly illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unreasonable, and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to make the payment of aforementioned amount forthwith along with interest @ 24% p.a. to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders ……” 2. In spite of adjourning the matter, the respondents have not filed their counter affidavit. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated in the tender process and stood as a lowest bidder. The 6th respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide agreement No.221/2023-2024, dated 22.06.2023, for execution of work of providing CC walls to Marapakunta Kaluva of KCC system in Pullareddy Nagar in Bhadripalli Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa JS,J W.P.No.6770 of 2025 3 District. The petitioner has completed the work. The Deputy Executive Engineer, SRBC QC & I Sub Division No.2, Koilakuntla, Nandyal, has issued quality control certificate and the 6th respondent passed the final bill on 09.08.2023 for an amount of Rs.18,04,054-93 ps. 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 09.08.2023, the bill amount is not yet paid to the petitioner even after lapse of one and half 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 in which this Court held as extracted hereunder: “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. 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP)390 JS,J W.P.No.6770 of 2025 4 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 opined 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.” 6. This Court has observed that though the work was completed long back and the final bill was passed on 09.08.2023, 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 work and the bill amount, the respondents should pay the bill amount 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. 7. 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: JS,J W.P.No.6770 of 2025 5 i) The respondents are directed to clear the bill submitted by the petitioner and release an amount of Rs.18,04,054-93 ps (Rupees eighteen lakhs four thousand fifty four and ninety three paise only) 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 3rd April, 2025 spp/cbs JS,J W.P.No.6770 of 2025 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO.6770 of 2025 Date : 03.04.2025 spp/cbs