APHC010386642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 19960/2025 Between: 1. VR AGRO EQUIPMENTS, , REP. BY ITS MANGING PARTNER KANALA LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O.K V MANOHAR REDDY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7-299/A, VEERA REDDY BUILDING, KOILAKUNTA ROAD, ALLAGADDA, KURNOOL DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE AP STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGD. OFFICE AT G1, G2, 101, PRIME HILL CREST, VADDESWARAM, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE AP STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REGD. OFFICE AT G1, G2, 101, PRIME HILL CREST, VADDESWARAM, GUNTUR DIST. 5. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, APSIRD AND PR SPRC AND DPRC BUILDING, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEER'S COLONY, KANUR, DONKA ROAD, ENIKEPADU, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 520007. 2 6. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (MSME), A-WING 7TH FLOOR, NIRMAN BHAWAN, MAULANA AZAD ROAD NEW DELHI - 110108 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.84,48,844/- payable to the petitioner which is due under a Dealership agreement dt.29.03.2023 executed by and between 1ST respondent and petitioner with regard to the supply of Tractor Drawn Implements to the farmers of PR AND RD Departments in different District across the State of Andhra Pradesh as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the amount payable to the petitioner along with interest as per provisions of MSMDE, 2006 till the date of realization in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to take immediate steps to release the amount f84,48,844/- payable to the petitioner by acting upon the letter dt. 15.07.2025 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. MANIKANTESWARA RAO KOTHA 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 19960 of 2025 ORDER:- The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “….to action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.84,48,844/- payable to the petitioner which is due under a Dealership agreement dt.29.03.2023 executed by and between 1ST respondent and petitioner with regard to the supply of Tractor Drawn Implements to the farmers of PR AND RD Departments in different District across the State of Andhra Pradesh as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the amount payable to the petitioner along with interest as per provisions of MSMDE, 2006 till the date of realization in the interest of justice and pass….” 2. The sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioner challenged the inaction of the respondents in not releasing the amounts even after completion of the entire works entrusted to him. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, submits that in view of the non-release of the admitted amounts, the petitioner is facing multifarious problems, physically and fiscally. Hence, he submits that the release of the amounts is just and essential. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, places a copy of the written instructions dated 23.04.2026 issued 4 by the concerned authority of the Corporation and submits that six months’ time may be granted for paying the admitted amount of Rs.56,35,289/- to the petitioner. 6. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner completed the works and has yet to receive payment, this Court finds the respondents’ failure to pay is unjustified. However, taking into consideration of the ground realities to settle the admitted amounts, the respondents are granted rational time to settle the dues. 7. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractor Vs Chief General Manager and Others1, in vivid terms categorically in the following manner. “8. Be that as it may, the High Court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction…..” 8. It is apt to note that a mere financial incapacity/poor financial conditions, as stated by the respondent Corporation, for non-releasing of amounts after utilising the services of the petitioner, cannot be a ground. 9. In view of the above stated legal position, the respondent Corporation, being the instrumentality of the ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is bound to release the amount for the undisputed works done by the petitioner, without any further delay. A mere financial incapacity or 1 (2025) SCC Online SC 1400 5 paucity of funds cannot be a valid defence for non-fulfilment of such statutory obligations, more particularly, when the works executed by the petitioner are admitted by the respondent Corporation. 10. So far as the interest portion is concerned, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director & Ors. Vs. Sree Balaji Constructions & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.60 of 2025) held that the award of interest on delayed payments was unsustainable in the absence of specific terms and conditions of the relevant agreement between the parties, but in the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not touched on the said point. However, the Hon’ble Division Bench in similar circumstances made it clear that the parties are at liberty to pursue their claims before an appropriate forum in accordance with the Law. 11. In the light of the above legal position, coupled with the fact that the liability for the undisputed works was admitted by the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the amount payable to the petitioner, within a period of six (06) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate civil court with regard to interest, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 05.05.2026 PBS 6 164 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.19960 of 2025 Date: 05.05.2026 PBS