APHC010591392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 32285/2025 Between: Rudrapati Muni Raju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Sri MANIKANTA THOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Ld. Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. Ld. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3. Ld. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.32285 OF 2025 Date of order:20.11.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.32285 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents for non-payment of the bills for the works undertaken by the petitioner. 2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Municipal Corporation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 5th respondent entrusted the work to the petitioner. The details of the work is, i.e., arrangements of facilities to polling stations like tents, pendyals for shadow barricading etc., for elections at various places of Vinukonda Municipality under agreement No.42/2024-25, dt.08.05.2024. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner duly executed the works to the satisfaction of the 5th respondent. It is further submitted that after execution of the work, the progress of the work was recorded in the M book. Later, the petitioner submitted the final bill. The authorities of the 5th respondent, after -3- W.P. No.32285 OF 2025 Date of order:20.11.2025 the quality check and after fulfilling statutory requirements, approved the final bill for a sum of Rs.4,84,234/-, but so far no payment has been made to the petitioner. 5. The learned standing counsel for respondents 5 to 8, on oral instructions, submits that the works undertaken by the petitioner were completed to the satisfaction of the authorities of the 5th respondent. However, on account of lack of funds, the payment could not be made to the petitioner till now, and that payment would be made in due course. 6. Considering the submissions that the work completed by the petitioner is not in dispute, there shall be a direction to respondents 2 and 5 to verify and release the payments due payable to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV