APHC010494642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 25557 OF 2024 Between: Shaik Jani ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in not paying the First and Final Bill of net amount of Rs.7,77,716/-, to the petitioner, in respect of the Work Agreement No.32/2022-23, dated 03.3.2023, for execution of Desilting of Nakhalakhandi drain, cleaning of JS, J WP_25557_2024 2 vents of aqueduct @ 19.20 km of PBC, Cleaning Sholas etc., from 0.000 km from Ballakattu to 1.000km upto PBC main canal in Gollaprolu Mandal, being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19(1)g and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents forthwith to pay the First and Final Bill an amount of Rs.6,94,305/-, out of Gross amount of Rs.7,77,716, out of Gross amount of Rs.7,98,394/- to the petitioner in respect of the Work Agreement No.32/2022-23, dated 03.3.2023, for execution of Desilting of Nakhalakhandi drain, cleaning of vents of aqueduct @ 19.20 km of PBC, Cleaning Sholas etc., from 0.000 km from Ballakattu to 1.000km upto PBC main canal in Gollaprolu Mandal and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 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 4th respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide agreement No.32/2022-23, dated 03.3.2023, for execution of work of desilting of Nakhalakhandi drain, cleaning of vents of aqueduct @ 19.20 km of PBC, Cleaning Sholas etc., from 0.000 km from Ballakattu to 1.000km upto PBC main canal in Gollaprolu Mandal. JS, J WP_25557_2024 3 The petitioner has completed the work. The 5th and 6th respondents have issued quality control certificate and also issued measurement books and passed final bill for an amount of Rs.7,77,716/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has borrowed amounts from third parties to execute the work and is paying huge interest. Though the first and final bills were passed on 07.04.2023, the same are not yet processed even after lapse of one year. 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. 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP) 390 JS, J WP_25557_2024 4 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 opinied as extracted hereunder: “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 long back and the bills were passed on 07.04.2023, 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 work and the bills amount, the respondents should pay the bills amount on “first done first paid” basis. JS, J WP_25557_2024 5 6. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by this Court in S. Srinivas (Supra), the Writ Petition is allowed, with the following directions: i) The respondents are directed to clear the bills submitted by the petitioner and release the final bill an amount of Rs.7,77,716/- payments within four (4) weeks from today with interest at 12% p.a. 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. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 25th March, 2025 TJN JS, J WP_25557_2024 6 224 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 25557 OF 2024 Date: 25.3.2025 TJN