Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39994 (AP)

TANNEERU PADMAVATHI v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/33915/2025 · 2025-12-04

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010655592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 33915/2025 Between: 1. TANNEERU PADMAVATHI, W/O. GOPALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O. 35-1-25, DEVUDU CHERUVU, ONGOLE PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523001. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, PRIME HILL CREST, NEAR DGP OFFICE, BEHIND ULTRA TECH READYMIX PLANT, VADDESWARAM, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 5. THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, WORKS AND ACCOUNTS, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in non-payment of bills payable to the petitioner to a tune of Rs. 4,38,063/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty-Eight Thousand and Sixty-Three Only) (Gross Amount) for the work done pertaining to Laying of 100mm dia P.V.C. Pipe Line back side of KK computers and Pappu Bazar in Division No. 26 with Estimate cost Rs. 10.50 Lakhs as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and against the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1949 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the bill amount of Rs. 4,38,063/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty-Eight Thousand and Sixty-Three Only) (Gross Amount), for the work executed by the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 28/10/2025, and to release the withholding bill amount payable to the petitioner to a tune of Rs. 4,38,063/- [Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty- Eight Thousand and Sixty-Three Only] (Gross Amount), and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BANDLA PAVAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was awarded the work of Laying of 100mm dia P.V.C. Pipe Line back side of KK computers and Pappu Bazar in Division No. 26, vide agreement No.583/2022- 23, dated 14.12.2022. 2. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner duly executed all the said work and thereafter submitted the final bills for an amount of Rs.4,38,063/-. It is submitted that the final bills were duly endorsed by the competent authority. A statement detailing the work executed by the petitioner was also prepared progress of the work was recorded in the M-book. However, in spite of the completion of all procedural formalities, the payments towards the completed work have not been released till date. 3. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration Department, Sri. A.S.C. Bose, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning. 4. During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation does not dispute the submissions made by the petitioner with respect to the completion of the work undertaken and that the non-payment of bills is due to paucity of funds. 5. Considering the submissions, the concerned respondents are hereby directed to verify and release the payments as expeditiously as possible 4 preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 05.12.2025 PNS