IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 4808 OF 2025 Between: KR Infra Solutions, Rep by its Prop. Kumpati Rattaiah, S/o Kumpati Kotaiah, R/o D.no2-40, Potiuru Village, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Water Resources Rep by its Principle Secretary Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi Thulluru Mandal Guntur District. 2. Department of Finance and Planning, Rep by its Principle Secretary Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi Thulluru Mandal Guntur District. 3. The Engineering in Chief, Water Resources Department, Vijayawada. 4. The Executive Engineer, KW Division, Tenali, Guntur. ...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 declaring the inaction of the respondents in not releasing the pending bills of the petitioner nearly worth of Rs 26,79,000/- illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release the pending bills of the petitioner worth of Rs 26,79,000/- with 18% rate of interest. as Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MEDIKONDA PRANAY CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4: GP FOR IRRI AND CAD Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR FINANCE & The Court made the following: ORDER VENKAT PLANNING wr" m APHC010090762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) S:*0 [3459] 0 MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 4808/2025 Between: Kr Infra Solutions, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhrapradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MEDIKONDA PRANAY VENKAT CHOWDARY 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 admitted lind and Final Bill payable to the petitioner towards the completed work i.e.. Modernization of Godavari Western Delta System - Protection of eroded banks of Junnuru Channel in between Km 15.00 to 23.00 in West Godavari District, pursuant to M-Book no. 402GW for an amount of Rs. 2,23,068/-, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also oppose to the settled principles of law and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release the due ,, , amount payable to the petitioner towards the completed work I.e., Modernization of Godavari Western Delta System Protection of eroded banks of Junnuru 2 Channel in between Km 15.00 to 23.00 in West Godavari District, under M- Book no. 402GW for Rs. 2,23,068/-, and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ” In spite of adjourning the matter, the respondents have not filed their 2. counter affidavit. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a contractor and entered into four agreements with the respondents during the year 2020-21 and 2021-22, for execution of different works. The petitioner has completed the work. The 4 respondent has issued quality control certificates and passed final bill for an amount of Rs.12,53,580/- (Rs.1,74,786/- + Rs.2,18,529/- + Rs.4,63,025/- + Rs.3,97,240/-). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has 4. borrowed amounts from third parties to execute the work and is paying huge interest. Though the first and final bills were passed in the year 2023, 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 others^ held as under: 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 ‘21) ^ 2021 Lawsuit (AP)390 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. 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. 22) A larger bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others V, G.C.Roy opinled 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, 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 as shown in the quality control certificates filed by the petitioner and release an amount of 4 Rs.12,53,580/- (Rs.1,74,786/- + Rs.2.18,529/- + Rs.4,63,025/- + Rs.3,97,240/- ) 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 No.724 of 2021 and batch of cases dated 12.10.2023, within twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /r ^ To, SECTION OFFICER 3. The Engineering in Chief, Water Resources 4. The Executive Engineer, KW Division, 5. One CC to Sri Medikonda Pranay Venkat 6. Two CCs to GP for Irri and CAD and Planning, Guntur District. Department, Vijayawada. Tenali, Guntur. Chowdary Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 ORDER of WP.No.4808 of 2025 o X 2 6 JUN ?fi?5 m Co 9: >-v ^ Current Section ^ ' DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS