APHC010279352024 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: 14013/2024 Between: Mitra Engineering Constructions ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: JS,J W.P.No.14013 of 2024 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 to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the bill net amount of Rs.1,29,13,109/- even after finalizing the bill payable to the petitioner in relation to the execution of work i.e., construction of double lane bridge on Ogeruvagu at KM 63.000 near Chilakaluripet (V) in Chilakaluripet Mandal in Guntur District vide agreement No.51SE/2018-19 dated 09.03.2019 as the same is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.1,29,13,109/- with interest 12% per annum to the petitioner in respect of execution of aforementioned work 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. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated in the tender process and stood as a lowest bidder. The 5th respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide agreement No.51SE/2018-2019, dated 09.03.2019, for construction of Double Lane Bridge on Ogeruvagu at KM 63.000 near Chilakaluripet Village and Mandal, Guntur District. The petitioner has completed part of the JS,J W.P.No.14013 of 2024 3 work and the respondent authorities recorded the same in the measurement book. The 6th respondent has passed the bill on 10.06.2024 for net amount of Rs.1,29,13,109/-. 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 bill was passed on 10.06.2024, the bill amount is not yet paid to the petitioner even after lapse of about 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 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. 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP)390 JS,J W.P.No.14013 of 2024 4 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 part of the work was completed long back and the bill was passed on 10.06.2024, 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 part of the work and the bill amount, the respondents should pay the bill 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: i) The respondents are directed to clear the bill submitted by the petitioner and release an amount of Rs.1,29,13,109/- (Rupees one crore twenty nine lakh thirteen thousand one hundred nine only) to the JS,J W.P.No.14013 of 2024 5 petitioner within a period of six (6) 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.14013 of 2024 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.14013 of 2024 24th April, 2025 cbs