APHC010505022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26422/2025 Between: Mamidala Bhaskar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VIVEK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3. SRI G.LAKSHMI NARAYANA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R.3 The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.26422 OF 2025 Date of order: 31.10.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.26422 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-Corporation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entrusted with the work for transportation of drinking water through tankers in various wards of Kanigiri Nagar Panchayat (Spell-7), under agreement No.120/2020-21 dated 16.01.2021.It is submitted that the 4th respondent, Special Officer sanctioned an administrative sanction for the aforesaid work, and the petitioner proceeded with the execution of the work allotted to him and completed the same to the satisfaction of respondents 3 to 5. The competent authority recorded the progress of the work in the M Book. It is further submitted that after execution of the work, the petitioner has submitted a bill for a sum of 27,02,219/- and the -3- W.P. No.26422 OF 2025 Date of order: 31.10.2025 3rdrespondent admitted the said bill, but so far no payment has been made to the petitioner. 4. The learned standing counsel for respondents 3 to 5, on oral instructions, submits that the work undertaken by the petitioner was completed to the satisfaction of the 3rd respondent. However, on account of lack of funds, the payment could not be made to the petitioner. 5. Considering the submissions that the work completed by the petitioner is not in dispute and on account of the lack of funds, the payment for the work undertaken by the petitioner could not be released, there shall be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to verify and release the payments due payable to the petitioner within a period of six weeks. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV