TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 3637/2025 Between: N. Venu Gopal Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SMT MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments for the works executed by the petitioner for Providing (i) Repairs to Aqueduct @ 26.643 km and other improvements in Right Main Canal of Gajuladinne Project in Gonegandia (M) in Kurnool District through the Agreement No.24/2023-24 dated 21.09.2023 for an amount of Rs.17,70,236/- (ii) Restoration of Canal section at 15th Distributory and other improvements in Right Main Canal of Gajuladinne Project in Gonegandia (M) in Kurnool District through the Agreement No.26 /2023-24 dated 21.09.2023 for an amount of Rs.17,51,709/- (iii) Replacement of Shuttering arrangements to 16th, 17th Distributaries and Repairs 2 to 18th Distributory and other improvements in Right Main Canal of Gajuladinne Project in Gonegandia (M) in Kurnool District through the Agreement No.25/2023-24 dated 21.09.2023 for an amount of Rs.17,94,471/- and (iv) Repairs to DP-3, 13th Distributory and other improvements in Right Main Canal of Gajuladinne Project in Gonegandia (M) in Kurnool District through the Agreement No.27/2023-24 dated 21.09.2023 for an amount of Rs.15,05,289/- totaling the works amount to Rs.68,21,705/- is illegal arbitrary and contrary to law and un constitution and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.68,21,705/- with 18 percent Per annum to the petitioner in respect of the execution of aforementioned work forthwith and to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. In spite of adjourning the matter several times, the respondents have not filed their counter affidavit. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a contractor and has participated in the tender notification for various works relating to Gajuladinne Project for the year 2023-24. The 4th respondent has entered into agreements with the petitioner vide agreement Nos.24/2023-24, 26/2023-24, 25/2023-24 and 27/2023-24 dated 21.09.2023. The petitioner has completed the work. Having satisfied with the work, the 5th respondent has issued quality control certificate and also issued measurement books and passed final bills for total amount of Rs.68,21,705/-. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has borrowed amounts from third parties to execute the work and is paying huge interest. Though the first and final bills were passed, the bills amount is not yet paid to the petitioner even after lapse of two years. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in S. Srinivas Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1 held as under: “21) In the considered opinion of this Court, withholding the amount for which the petitioner is legitimately entitled is nothing but depriving the petitioner. Due to illegal action of non-payment of the amounts promptly by clearing the bills submitted by the petitioner after execution of works, the petitioner could not feed and see the welfare of his family properly and he could not make payments to his employees/workers and he could not make payments to the material suppliers and he has to pay interests for the debts incurred by him for execution of works. Due to this situation, petitioner’s respect and dignity in the society will be deteriorated. 22) As such this Court holds that withholding the amount, for which the petitioner is legally entitled, is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 24) A larger bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others V. G.C.Roy opinied as extracted hereunder: “A person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages”. 25) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in J.Devendra Reddy V Kakatiya University and another held that withholding of the 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP)390 4 amount payable to the petitioner for the contract works, constitutes patent arbitrariness on the part of the respondents.” 6. This Court has observed that though the works were completed long back and the bills were passed, the respondents have not released the amounts so far on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Since there is no dispute with regard to the execution of work and the bills amount, the respondents should pay the bills amount on “first done first paid” basis. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of the law laid down by this Court in S. Srinivas case referred supra, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions: i) The respondents are directed to clear the bills submitted by the petitioner and release an amount of Rs.68,21,705/- in favour of the petitioner within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with interest at 12% p.a. ii) The interest shall be computed from the date of expiry of one month from the date of submission of the bill by the petitioner till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 08.04.2025 KAS 5 242 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO.3637 of 2025 Date: 08.04.2025 KAS