APHC010353932024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 18125/2024 Between: Annapureddy Subba Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO.18125 of 2024 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the non-payment of amounts totaling to Rs.37,48,460/- (Rs.18,53,586/- + Rs.18,94,874/-) due to the Petitioner for the works i.e. ‘Providing of New Public borewell at various places from 2 to 18 Wards in Narasaraopet Municipality’ under Agreement No.144/2022-23, dated 04.07.2022 and ‘Providing of New Public borewells at various places from 19 to 34th Wards and 1st Ward in Narasaraopet Municipality’ under Agreement No.227/2022- 23, dated 27.09.2022 respectively done by him despite finalizing the bills and generating CFMS numbers, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Smt. Vallabhaneni Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.8-Municipality. 3. The Petitioner submits that he had completed the works mentioned above and final quality assessment for all the works was done by the Confiar Labs, which was employed by the Respondent No.8 and the amounts due to the Petitioner were uploaded in the CFMS Portal for clearance by the Finance Department vide 2024-794277 and 2024-795256. As the amounts were not being paid the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.8- Municipality passed on the signed instructions of the Commissioner, Narasaraopet Municipality to the Court, wherein the execution of works and the amounts claimed by the Petitioner was not disputed. It was mentioned in the written instructions that the amounts were sent to 3 incorrect funding process and on that account the bill amounts were returned. It was also mentioned that the Respondent No.8 had addressed a letter to get CFMS Department to return the bills of amounts as there was a technical fault and accordingly the CFMS authority had rejected the bills. It was further mentioned that steps are being taken to process the bills of the Petitioner and that there is no deliberate act on the part of the Respondent authorities in delaying the payment. 5. As there is no dispute regarding execution of works and amount due to the Petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of both sides counsel and placing the written instructions on record, with the following direction: (i) The Respondent authorities are directed to pay the amounts due to the Petitioner within a period of four (4) months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 01.04.2025 IS 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO.18125 of 2024 Date: 01.04.2025 IS