APHC010474722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 24132/2025 Between: M/s Kotaiah Agencies, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3. STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE CORPORATION The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.24132 OF 2025 Date of order:10.09.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.24132 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning and the learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition is filed by the contractor, who executed various works within the limits of the Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation. The petitioner has completed the works to the satisfaction of the Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation and the final bills were also approved by the competent authority. However, the bills were not released. The petitioner executed the works during the year 2023-24, and also executed some works in the year 2024. It is submitted that the competent authority has approved the bills; however, there has been no payment forthcoming from the Corporation. Aggrieved by the non-payment of the bills by the Corporation, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the above writ petition. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for Corporation, on written instructions, submits that on 09.08.2024, the Vigilance Enquiry was initiated against the works executed by the petitioner and the -3- W.P. No.24132 OF 2025 Date of order:10.09.2025 Vigilance Enquiry is being conducted on the works which are entrusted to the petitioner. It is also submitted in the counter that the Vigilance Department is taking up verification of the works executed by the petitioner for the year 2019-2024 and the reports were awaited. 4. It is further submitted that the Commissioners of Municipal Corporation can award works on nomination basis costing up to Rs.1,00,000/- and that works on nomination basis can be entrusted up to Rs.5,00,000/- with the approval of the Council in case of Municipalities and with the approval of the Standing Committee in case of Corporations. It is also submitted that the works entrusted to the petitioner exceeded the cap of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner executed the as many as nine works entrusted by the Corporation and raised bills of more than Rs.10,00,000/-. 5. As seen from the pleadings, the bills were also approved for payment of Rs.16,09,195/-. Considering the submissions of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the corporation, withholding all the bills for the works completed by the petitioner cannot be upheld under law, especially when the petitioner cannot be expected to know the details of the circulars/ GOs that imposed a cap on the value of the work to be issued on a nomination basis. When the corporation deemed it appropriate to award the works to the petitioner and had them executed and even if there are some irregularities in entrusting -4- W.P. No.24132 OF 2025 Date of order:10.09.2025 the works, it is for the respondent authorities to take action against the officers concerned and the petitioners cannot be penalized for such acts of the officers and that the bills due payable to the petitioner for the works executed by him would have to be paid without any further delay. There is no time frame for completion of the vigilance enquiry. That apart the learned Standing Counsel has not submitted on the methodology adopted by the vigilance committee to verify the works. In so far as the Vigilance Enquiry is concerned, in the event an adverse report against the works completed by the petitioner is arrived at, the respondents shall have the right to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Further, the petitioner shall submit a security bond for the amount released and in case it is found that they are due payable, the department can take appropriate action for recovery of the amount. 6. Considering the submissions, respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 to 8 are hereby directed to verify and release the payments due payable to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV