APHC010036322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3459] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.1949 OF 2025 Between: Sri S. Neelakanta Reddy --- Petitioner and The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and 4 others --- Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy Counsel for the respondents : G.P. for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, 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 Writ or Order or a direction, more in the form of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not making payment of Rs.21,42,368/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and Three Hundred Sixty Eight Only) to the petitioner for the execution of “Providing Pipe Drain near SC JS,J WP No.1949/2025 2 Colony to Vank at Pernapadu Village of Vemula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District” vide Agreement dated 03.11.2023, as highly illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, unfair and in violation of the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to make the payment of aforementioned amount forthwith along with interest @ 24% p.a. to the petitioner and pass …………” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he has participated in the tender process and stood as successful bidder. The 4th respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide agreement No. /2023- 2024, dated 03.11.2023, for execution of Providing Pipe Drain near SC Colony to Vank at Pernapadu Village of Vemula Mandal of YSR Kadapa District, during the year 2023-2024. The petitioner has completed the works within the stipulated time. The respondent authorities have inspected the works, filed the Measurement Book and finalized the bills for a net amount of Rs.21,42,368/-. 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 work was completed long back and the bill is finalized, the bill amount is not yet released to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in similar circumstances, JS,J WP No.1949/2025 3 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 amount payable to the petitioner for the contract works, constitutes patent arbitrariness on the part of the respondents.” 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP) 390 JS,J WP No.1949/2025 4 4. This Court has observed that though the works were completed long back and the bill was finalized, 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 bill amount, the respondents should pay the bill 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 payment of Rs.21,42,368/- within three (3) weeks 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 (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. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 21.04.2025 DSH