APHC010614872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31704/2025 Between: M/s. Sai Q And S Solution, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Ms. MODAPOTHULA SUMALATHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Ld. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 2. Ld. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3. Ld. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 4. Smt. Sirisha Rani Vallabhaneni, Ld. Standing Counsel for R.4. The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.31704 OF 2025 Date of order:14.11.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.31704 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-payment of an amount of Rs.34,70,000/-, even after the finalization of the bill. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entrusted with the work of providing a helipad and parking arrangements at Sattenapalli for a function held on 18.01.2019. The learned counsel further submits that in spite of the completion of the work, the payment due to the petitioner has not been released. Aggrieved by the inaction, the petitioner filed W.P.No.37746 of 2022, wherein this Court, vide order dated 06.12.2022, directed the respondents therein to release the amount within a period of eight weeks. 3. The learned counsel further submits that, as per the proceedings dated 21.08.2020, the 3rd respondent instructed the 4th respondent to arrange the requisite funds in favour of the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings (R&B), Guntur, for payment to the petitioner. It is also submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had not made the 4th respondent as a party to the proceedings, and therefore, the order could not be implemented. -3- W.P. No.31704 OF 2025 Date of order:14.11.2025 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the authorities of the R&B Department must be made as a party to the writ petition for effective implementation of the order. 5. The array of respondents 6 to 8 would suffice to meet the objection raised by the learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent. That apart, the amount due payable to the petitioner is neither in dispute nor has been subjected to any scrutiny. The only issue raised is, who is responsible for release of the payment. Insofar as the execution of the work is concerned, there is no dispute in completion of the work as desired by the respondents. On these considerations, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release the payment due payable to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV