Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 29544 (AP)

TANIKONDA SRINIVASULU v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/21796/2024 · 2025-02-13

V Sujatha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010423202024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21796/2024 Between: Tanikonda Srinivasulu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R YELLA REDDY 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 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “....to issue a Writ of Mandamus declare the inaction on part of the Respondents herein not releasing the final bill amount worth of Rs.7,28,319/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Eighty Thousand Three Hundred Nineteen Only) dated May 28, 2024 along with interest as per the agreement 33/2022 dated 2.09.2022 and 164 dated March 24, 2024 vide Measurement Book No.19/2023-24 19A/2023-24 for construction of Storm Water Drain from Pamarru Road Turning Point (D.No.16-7-76/3A) to Ganesh Godown (D.No.16-7-76(1)) at Machavaram Road, 24th Ward, Kandukur Municipality as illegal arbitrary contrary to the principles of natural justice and in violation of the Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to make the payment of an amount of Rs.7,28,319/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Eighty Thousand Three Hundred Nineteen Only) dated May 28, 2024 along with an interest at the rate of 18% on the principal due amount…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though respondents admitted that the petitioner is entitled for payment of the aforesaid sum of money, no payment is being made and such non-payment of money is clearly arbitrary and high-handed and thereby requires interference by this Court. 3 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality, has furnished a copy of written instructions, wherein it is stated that the petitioner being the contractor has completed the work and the same was recorded in M.Book No.19/2023-24, 19/A/2023-24, Dt.18.07.2023, 20.07.2023. The first and part bill of gross amount of Rs.45,83,210.82/- was sanctioned and released to the petitioner vide bill No.22-23-1460772 and credited on 23.10.2023. It is further stated that the remaining CC second and final bill amount of Rs.8,79,824.30/- was prepared and uploaded through the logins of the Assistant Engineer, Dy.E.E and the Executive Authority, the 4th respondent through the work module in the CFMS portal without any delay. 5. It is further stated that, the respondent office has taken all necessary measures regarding the preparation of work bill for the CC second and final following the due procedure. After the processing of the user logins to the concerned officers, the bill shall be forwarded to the PAO, Nellore for final approval and release as funds to the contractor/petitionr i.e., Sri Tanikonda Srinivasulu, Proprietor of M/s Lakshmi Narayana construction without any further delay. 6. In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to clear the net amount payable to the petitioner, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 13.02.2025 JLV