APHC010570892025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 29568/2025 Between: M/s. Sri Surya Rama Constructions, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MODAPOTHULA SUMALATHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.29568 OF 2025 Date of order: 28.10.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.29568 OF 2025 ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the Municipal Administration & Urban Development, the learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation and the learned Government Pleader for Finance & Planning. 2. The petitioner was entrusted with the contract work i.e., proposed Godavari Kalakshetra at Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh by Kakinada Smart City Corporation Limited, vide agreement No.36/2018-19, dt.20.02.2019. In compliance with the contractual requirement, the petitioner has deposited the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and the Final Security Deposit (FSD). It is further submitted that the 7th respondent has released the bills payable to the petitioner and that the works were completed in the year 2020-2021. It is also submitted that the petitioner has completed the work entrusted by the 7th respondent. However, the Final Security Deposit (FSD) amount, which was initially deposited, has not yet been released. It is further submitted that the mandatory cooling period of three years has already elapsed and that in spite of the repeated requests, the respondents continue to withhold the release of the FSD amount beyond the permissible cooling period. Due to the -3- W.P. No.29568 OF 2025 Date of order: 28.10.2025 non release of FSD amount, the petitioner has been facing severe financial difficulties. 3. In reply, the learned standing counsel for the 7th respondent submits that the FSD amount remain with the Corporation and also submits that the 7th respondent would release the FSD amount shortly. 4. Be that as it may, with regard to the release of FSD amount, the fact remains that once the cooling period has expired, the respondents cannot indefinitely retain such amounts. It is the bounden duty of the respondent authorities to ensure timely release of the amounts rightfully due to the contractor. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the withholding of FSD amounts beyond the cooling period is unjustified. Accordingly, the 7th respondent is directed to verify the FSD amount retained with it and release the same to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. 7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV