APHC010419172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 21790/2024 Between: M/s. Udayam Constructions, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: JS, J W.P.No.21790 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 declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents herein in releasing the final bill amount of Rs.29,62,701/- - (1) an amount of Rs.20,66,271/- along with GST of Rs.3,76,851/- vide agreement No.92/2022-23 dated 27.10.2022, (2) an amount of Rs.4,43,322/- along with GST of Rs.74,257/- vide agreement No.52/2022-23 dated 01.07.2022, to the petitioner till today and causing heavy loss with interest even though total work was completed as per the agreements as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to release the final bills amount to the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order or orders…...” 2. In spite of adjourning the matter several times, 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 8th respondent has entered into agreements with the petitioner vide agreement Nos.92/2022-23 dated 27.10.2022 and 52/2022-23 dated 01.07.2022 for removal of weed growth in Pedalanka Major Drain, Utukuru medium drain and its falling minor drains and removal of weed growth in all 19 minor drains under drainage section No.4, Kaikaluru, Kaikaluru Mandal, respectively. The petitioner has completed the JS, J W.P.No.21790 of 2024 3 works. The 8th respondent has issued quality control certificate and also issued measurement books and approved two final bills for Rs.20,47,895/- and for Rs.3,17,790/- totaling to Rs.23,65,685/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has borrowed amounts from third parties to execute the works and is paying huge interest. Though the final bills were approved n 17.02.2025, the bills amount is not yet paid to the petitioner. 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. 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: 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP)390 JS, J W.P.No.21790 of 2024 4 “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 works were completed and the bills were approved on 17.02.2025, the respondents have not released the amounts so far on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Since there is no dispute with regard to the execution of works and the bills amount, the respondents should pay the bills 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. 6. 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: i) The respondents are directed to clear the bills submitted by the petitioner and release an amount of Rs.23,65,685/- (Rs.20,47,895/- + Rs.3,17,790/-) in favour of the petitioner within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with interest at 12% p.a. JS, J W.P.No.21790 of 2024 5 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. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 7th April, 2025 cbn JS, J W.P.No.21790 of 2024 6 145 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO.21790 of 2024 7th April, 2025 cbn