Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27462 (AP)

Susowdha Precasting Pvt. Ltd, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/19839/2024 · 2025-04-02

Nyapathy Vijay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010389232024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 19839/2024 Between: Susowdha Precasting Pvt. Ltd, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and 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.19839 of 2024 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not paying the amount of Rs.4,57,365/- due to the Petitioner for the work executed for the Respondent No.8 i.e. Providing Pre-fabricated Compound Wall to Uppalapadu Layout for North side of new proposed park in Narasaraopet Municipality, Guntur District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Sasanka Buvanagiri, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Smt. Vallabhaneni Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.8-Municipality. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner had completed the work within the time prescribed and the amounts are not being paid in spite of repeated reminders. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.8- Municipality passed on the written instructions signed by the Commissioner, Narasaraopet Municipality, wherein it was stated that the amount of Rs.4,57,365/- payable to the Petitioner was sent to the incorrect funding process and on that account the bill was returned back to the office. It is further stated that due to technical fault the bill of the Petitioner was rejected on 20.05.2024 and the bill of the Petitioner would be sent in proper method. 3 5. As there is no dispute with regard to the execution of work and the amounts due to the Petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of both sides counsel by 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: 02.04.2025 IS 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.19839 of 2024 Date: 02.04.2025 IS