APHC010032522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3459] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.1927 OF 2025 Between: M/s. Sri Sri Vigneswara Constructions and another --- Petitioners and The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation and CAD) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and 6 others --- Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Rambabu Koppineedi Counsel for the respondents : G.P for Irrigation & CAD G.P for Finance and Planning The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: “………..to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments for the works i.e., O & M – Removal of Weed (Kikkisa) on Mogadindi Medium drain from Km:7.100 to JS,J WP No.1927/2025 2 10.000 under Drainage Section No.3 Bondada in West Godavari District through the Agreement No.84/2022-23, dated 05-12-2022 for an amount of Rs.25,80,816/- as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release Rs.25,80,816/- forthwith for the above said works executed by the petitioner and pass such order or orders that the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. …………” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he has participated in the tender process and stood as successful bidder. The 6th respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide agreement No.84/2022- 23, dated 05.12.2022, for execution of the work of O & M – Removal of Weed (Kikkisa) on Mogandindi Medium drain from Km:7.100 to 10.000 under Drainage Section No.3, Bondada in W.G. District, during the year 2022-2023. The petitioner has completed the works within the stipulated time. The respondent authorities have inspected the works, issued Measurement Books, finalized the bills but withheld balance payment amount of Rs.25,80,816/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has borrowed amounts from third parties to execute the works and is paying huge interest. Though the works are completed long back, the gross bill is passed for Rs.25,80,816/-, subject to recoveries of Rs.1,82,039/-, the net amount of the bills of Rs.23,98,777/- is not yet released to the petitioner. JS,J WP No.1927/2025 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in S. Srinivas v. 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. 23) …………….. 24) A larger bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others V. G.C.Roy opined 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 JS,J WP No.1927/2025 4 amount payable to the petitioner for the contract works, constitutes patent arbitrariness on the part of the respondents.” 4. 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 works and the bills amount, the respondents should pay the bills amount on “first done first paid” basis. Apart from that, priority or preference should be given to those, whose works are below Rs.50.00 lakhs as they are the affected persons. 5. In view of my foregoing discussion and the law laid down by this Court in S. Srinivas (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 the net bills amount of Rs.23,98,777/- within three (3) months from today with interest at 12% p.a. ii) The interest shall be computed from the date of expiry of one (1) month from the date of submission of the bills by the petitioner till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs. JS,J WP No.1927/2025 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 07.04.2025 DSH