APHC010535302023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) V. FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT-PETITION NO: 27737 OF 2023 Between: 1. The Waves Envirotech Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, S. Yuganadhar Reddy S/o. S. Vittal Reddy, Aged about 51 Years, H.NO.18-154A/S/105, Road No.5, Kamlanagar, Chaitanyapuri Hyderabad-500060. 2. S. Yuganadhar Reddy, S/o.S. Vittal Reddy, Aged about 51 Years, R/o. H.NO.11-14-262/C6/401, Haritha Enclave, Chitra Layout, Adjacent to. Ranga Reddy District Court, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad-500074. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased 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 undisputed payments for consultancy services provided for preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) for setting up of Sewage Treatment Plants (STP's) with Pumping Station for Respondent No.2 i.e., Kurnool Municipal Corporation in pursuance to Agreement dated 11/04/2018 and perusal to subsequent communication as mentioned in letter dated 16-05-2019 as illegal, Arbitrary and Violative of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondent authorities to forthwith release the amount of Rs.2,38,06,500 including GST along with penal interest of 18%. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 Respondent No.2 to consider for payment of amount of Rs.2,38,06,500 including CST for the services provided by preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) for setting up of Sewage Treatment Plants (STP's) with Pumping Station for Respondent No.2 i.e., Kurnool Municipal Corporation as sought by the petitioners in representations 28/07/2021, 23/05/2022, 06/02/2023 and 06/03/2023 pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PONNADA SREE WAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2:SRI A. S. C. BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS The Court made the following 1 APHC010535302023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OE JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 27737/2023 Between: ...PETITIONER{S) The Waves Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The state Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.PONNADASREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2.SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.27737 of 2023 ORDER: The present Writ Petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the undisputed payments for consultancy services provided for preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) for setting up of Sewage Treatment Plants (STP's) with Pumping Station for RespondentNo.2 Kurnool Municipal Corporation, in pursuance to Agreement dated 11/04/2018 and perusal to subsequent communication as mentioned in letter dated 16-05-2019 as illegal and arbitrary”. 1. i.e. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition is as follows; 2. A Notice was issued by the Respondent No.2 on 09.03.2018 inviting expression of interest for providing consultancy services for preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) for setting of sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) with pumping Station in pursuance of the Orders of the National Green Tribunal in O.A.No.773 of 2018 for restoration of water quality in the polluted river stretches of Tungabadra and Hundri Banks. The Petitioner No.1 had submitted Expression of Interest on 10.03.2018 and the same was accepted by issuance of a Letter of Acceptance dated 27.03.2018 by the Respondent No.2. Consequent thereto, an agreement was entered between the Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner herein on 11.04.2018. It is stated that for preparation of the DPR, the Petitioner had engaged 25 Junior Engineers and Technical Staff for a period of two months. Apart therefrom, five Senior Engineers along with five assistants were also engaged at the proposed sites to collect samples for lab test and check the ground profiles to explore safe bearing 3. 3 capacity of the soil and to make area fit for setting up of STPs. After laboratory analysis of the samples collected at the sites, final DPR submitted to the Respondent No.2 on 18.05.2018 as agreed. was 4. The Petitioner raised an invoice of Rs. 1,22,13,000/- including GST @ 0.75% of the project value of Rs.138 crpres. Initially an amount of Rs.4,05,000/- was released after deducting TDS and excluding GST against the agreed part payment of Rs.54,95,859/-. The Petitioner, subsequently, raised second Invoice for the balance amount of as Rs.67,17,150/- including GST and sought for release of the pending amount. As there was no response from the Respondents, the Petitioner had given a representation of on 09.03.2019. As the amounts were not being released on one pretext or the other, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking the above mentioned relief. 5. The Respondent No.2 filed Counter Affidavit wherein the schedule of payment was mentioned and it was stated that upon scrutinizing the Details Project Report submitted by the Petitioner, certain deficiencies identified and the Petitioner was notified of these lapses and was instructed to address the issues and resubmit the DPR. However, the Petitioner, without addressing the lapses pointed out by the Respondent Authorities, insisted that the final DPR is addresses all the issues and no additional clarification would be required. Thereupon, the Respondent No.2 issued a Notice on 16.05.2019 to the Petitioner specifying the shortcomings in the DPR and requested for resubmission of the DPR after addressing the mistakes pointed out by them. In the Counter Affidavit, it was also stated that the Petitioner insisting for 100% payment of the amount, which is contingent upon the were 6. was 4 approval of the draft and final DPR by the competent authority i.e., the Engineer in Chief, Public Health, Guntur, and as the Petitioner did not comply the lapses pointed out in the DPR, the balance amount was not released. It was also stated that in spite of the same, 25% of the amount i.e., Rs.50,66,626/- including GST was paid on 18.09.2020 in terms of the agreement. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would contend that in spite of compliances of the terms of the agreement, the Petitioner has spent substantial amounts in engaging technically qualified engineers for sending the report to the Respondent Authority. One excuse or the other is being raised outside the scope of the agreement and it was on that count, the payment to the petitioner was being deferred one count or the other. The learned counsel also pointed out that as per the TDS statement of the Petitioner No.1, an amount of 38,43,75/- towards outstanding amount of Rs. 1,92,187,50/- was also paid by the Respondent Corporation to the Income Tax Department. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the payment by itself is an acknowledgment of the amount due to the Petitioner and it was only in that context the TDS was paid to the Income Tax Department by the Respondent Corporation and therefore, it certifies the admission of the amount due to the Petitioner and acceptance of the DPR report submitted. Learned Standing Counsel submits that as the Petitioner did not comply the lapses, which have been pointed out in the Letters addressed with the Petitioner, the amounts could not be paid. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 7. on 8. 9. 10. 5 There is no dispute to the agreement and submission of Detailed Project Report by the Petitioner No.1. The only dispute is whether the DPR submitted by the Petitioner is in terms with the agreement or otherwise is the only issue that needs to be considered. 11. The scope of work as per the Appendix-A of the Contract of the Agreement reads as under; 12. SCOPE OF TASK: Prepare necessary designs and cost estimates for infrastructure sub projects, inciuding any necessary data collections, as requested by the client i) Working in close liaison with the municipal staff, the consultants will be responsible for the following tasks, ii) Update the overall implementation plan contained in the Project report to reflect actual progress and Justify any substantial modifications required -this will be done by agreeing the scope of work to be done with the Municipal Commissioner and the Municipal Engineer; Hi) Ensure the scope of the sub-projects to be designed is within that approval and where the scope is substantially altered, fully Justify any alterations; iv) Review the location of proposed works and liaise with municipal staff in improving the design through comparing options, or reducing costs by modifying conceptual designs as necessary; V) identify the land for proposed STPs in consultation with the Department, which may be required. vi) Prepare a detailed implementation plan for each contract vii) Prepare necessary designs as per guidelines and required drawings to allow technical sanction and construction of the works by the contractor; This can involve the use of the Standard Engineering Estimates (SEDs)”. r 6 The Appendix-A also mentions about the description of the task purpose of the task, scope of the task etc. 13. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had submitted a detailed DPR consisting 3 volumes, running into 2000 pages, giving clarity for the solution to undue pollution to the river. Now coming to the objections that have been raised by the Respondent Authorities to the DPR vide Letters referred in the Counter Affidavit. The Letter dated 16.05.2019 indicates the quantum of seweage coming from the drain is calculated is as follows: 14. As verified in the DPR, the following are observed: 1. Quantum of Sewage coming from drains is caicuiated based on assumption of population of ward/part of ward population is considered which may not give accurate flows. Need to check the flows based on the zones prepared from contour maps and actual flow measurements from drains. During inspection along with SE (PH) ATP, the superintending Engineer has also observed and stated that flows in drains near old Tunga Bhadra Pump House and Near Mangalageri toilet are more than proposed STPs capacity in DPR and instructed to check actual flows in drains as per the field investigation. 2. Two major drains near Nagareswara swamy temple and sankal bagh are missing in DPR and need to be checked again for inclusion. 3. Instead of Decentralized STPs proposed along Tunghabhadra River, required land is available for combined STP for drains near Raghavendra swamy matam and khalia drains and Mangalageri and bandimetta drains. 4. Due to non availability of land for proposed STPs along Hundri River and Okkera vagu, the SE (PH) ATP suggested to combined STP at confluence point of Tunga Bhadra River and Hundri River where required land is available for sewage flows in Hundri River. And also instructed to prepare estimates for construction drain along both sides of Hundri River and Okkera vagu duly considering the invert levels of drains to divert flows towards confluence point of Tungha Bhadra River and Hundri River where combined STP is proposed. 5. For civil works lump sum quantities are shown for which detailed measurements are required and rates are also vary with Kurnool Municipal Corporation approved Data. L .1 7 6. There is no detailed data or quotations for mechanical items in DPR. 7. There is no authenticated data or quotation from technology providers in comparison of different technology proposed in DPR”. The above objections that have been raised by the Respondent Authorities are not traceable to the scope of work that has been pointed out. Further, the similar objections were raised in the Letter dated 09.10.2019 by the Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Department, as well as by the Commissioner of the Respondent Corporation on 23.10.2019. The DPR is an intellectual work outlining all aspects of the project in the wisdom and opinion of the person submitting the DPR. Being intellectual work, there could be difference of opinion, but the same cannot be a ground to reject the DPR. The Petitioner having been awarded the contract going by the track record, the Respondent Authorities are not justified in raising repeated objections on aspects which do not form part of the work. It is not the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner’s DPR does not even match the basic requirement and is of no utility to the Respondent Corporation. In ABL International Limited and another v Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and others\ the Hon’ble Apex Court opined that on a given set of facts, if a State acts in an arbitrary manner even in a matter of contract, a Writ Petition would be maintainable. It was opined: 15. 16. an 17. 18. It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once the $tate or an instrumentality of the State is a party of the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly. Justly and 1 (2004) 3 see 553 ‘s. 8 reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim of the appellants the first respondent as an instrumentality of the State has acted in contravention of the abovesaid requirement of Article 14, then we have no hesitation in holding that a writ Court can issue suitable directions to set right the arbitrary actions of the first Respondent. In Hornbill Consultants v State of Punjab^, the Apex Court held as 19. follows: “ It is, no doubt, correct that in contractual matters, the High Courts do not like to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even though this power is plenary in nature and not limited by any provision of the Constitution of India; as normally, when disputed questions of fact arise, adjudication in a civil Court is more appropriate. Just and fair. Nevertheless, this is not an absolute rule; more so in cases when the Orders passed by the Government authorities arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable and where the facts are not in dispute and are easily ascertainable”. Further, the objections were raised by the Commissioner of Respondent Corporation and the Superintendent Engineer of the Public Health Department of the Respondent Corporation, though the authority as per the contract is the ‘Engineer in Chief, Public Health Department, Guntur’. No objections were raised by the approving authority and in the absence of any objections by the approving authority, the Respondent Corporation is not entitled to raise such objections. are 20. ^ (2023) 18 see 721 9 21. Further, there is no explanation that is given by the Respondent Corporation as to how the TDS was paid acknowledging the amount due to the Petitioner. The very payment of TDS to the Income Tax Department the basis of outstanding amount due to the Petitioner itself would indicate that the DPR Corporation. In the absence of on was acted upon and accepted by the Respondent any allegations that the work done by the Petitioner is not in tune with the scope of work provided under the agreement, the objections that are being raised cannot be sustained. 22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. There shall be costs. no order as to As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. T. SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principle Secretary, Municipal Administration, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. One CC to Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A. S. C. Bose, SC for Municipal Corporations [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED;11/07/2025 ORDER WP No. 27737 OF 2023 0 5 NOV 2025 J sg^ifrent O' .*>9 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS