\. \ !N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATF^Sfe^j (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH -1 Sr- V day of APRiia •s*' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ■j FIVE PRESENT the honourable smt justice WRIT PETITIOM Mn. o,.,,,,, SUMATHI JAGADAM ^024 Between: P- S. G. R. Prasad, S/o Rama Krishna Contractor, R/o Kaikaram Village, Ungoturu Mandal District. Rao, Age; 40 yrs, Occ; West Godavari ■ PETITIONER AND Res Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Water ■ The District Collector, Eluru District at Eluru. 3. The Superintending Engineer; 4. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Eluru I'otr:',?”""" 7 Tl, “ °«»IWI. I Namboori Gopalarao Street Vijayawada, Krishna District. Irrigation Circle, Eluru. Hanumanpet, ...RESPONDENTS^ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated i be pleased to i* in the affidavit filed therewith. the High Court may P^'-tic^'arly one in the nature of declaring the action of the issue order or direction Writ of MANDAMUS respondents in not paying the bills raised by the Petitioner for the contract work done Neeru-Chettu by him under programme even after 3 years after completion of the illegal, arbitrary work is consequently direct the and unconstitutional and Respondent Authorities to pay the bill amount of Rs. 14,76,882/- along with interest @ 12% per annum in the interest for the bills raised by the Petitioner, in the interest of justice. ^ lA NO: 1 OF 2024 ^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to pay the bills raised by the Petitioner during pendency of the above writ petition in the interest of Justice-^ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. P. V. N. V. SASTRI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l, 3 to 7: GP FOR IRRIGATION & CAD^ Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010450932024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY. THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23380/2024 Between: P S G D R Prasad ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M P VN VSASTRI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the bills raised by the Petitioner for the contract work done by him under Neeru-Chettu programme even after 3 years after completion of the work is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent Authorities to pay the bill amount of Rs. 14,76,882/- along with interest @ 12percent per annum in the interest for the bills raised by the Petitioner, in the Interest of 2 justice and pass such other order circumstances of the case. ” or orders may deem fit and proper in the 2. In spite of adjourning the matter, the respondents have not filed their counter affidavit. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated tender process and stood into agreement with the petitioner vide in the as highest bidder. The 4'^ respondent has agreement No.250/2018-19, dated 31.10,2018 for execution of works relating to Construction of Check dam KM 0 (Bifurcation Point) on Gurralavagu in place of existing (old) checkdam, which is in diiapidated condition, in Amberpeta village limits of Bhimadole Mandal West Goda respondent has issued the amount of Rs.14,76,882/-. entered in van Distriut. me petitioner has completed the work. The 6*^ measurement books and passed final bill for an 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though bills were passed In the year 2019, the bills amount i petitioner even after lapse of five the first and final IS not yet paid to the years. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in S. Srinivas Vs. State ofAndhra Pradesh and others^ held as under: ‘21) In the considered opinion of this Court, withholding the amount for which the pemtoner 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 property and he could not make payments to his employees/workers and he could not make payments to the material 2021 Lawsuit (AP)390 I 3 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. yAs 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. 22) 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: 24) “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”. \ The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in J.Devendra Reddy V Kakatiya University and another held that withholding of the amount payable to the petitioner for the contract works, constitutes patent arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. ” 25) This Court has observed that though the works were completed long 5. back and the bills were passed in the year 2021, 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. 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 6. of, with the following directions: i) The respondents are directed to clear the bills submitted by the petitioner and release an amount of Rs.14,76,882/- in favour of the petitioner along with interest on the said amount as per the entitlement vide the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal NoJ24 of 2021 and batch dated 12.10.2023, within eight (8) this order. of cases weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of ii) The interest shall be the date of submission of the bill by the computed from the date of expiry of petitioner till the date of payment one month from There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Eluru District at Eluru. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Eluru. 4. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Eluru. 5. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Section, at Bhimadoljj< 6. The Divisional Accounts Officer (W), Irrigation Division, at Eluru. 7. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Water Resources Department D.No-14-7-29, 2nd Floor, Namboori Gopalarao Street, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 8. One CC to Sri M. P.V. N .V. Sastri, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CC’s to GP for Irrigation and CAD, High Court of Andhra Prades-hr. [OUT] 10. Two CC’s to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 11. Three CD Copies. ssb ✓ ; HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.23380 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS