APHC010036612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3459] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.2624 OF 2025 Between: M/s.Shree Mandali Enterprises, Nagayalanka Village and Mandal, Krishna District, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri Sanaka Kota Venkata Renuka Ravi Vara Prasad. --- Petitioner and The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and 5 others --- Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva 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 an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying bill amount to the Petitioner i.e., Rs.16,60,148/- (Sixteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand One Hundred and JS,J WP No.2624/2025 2 Forty Eight Rupees Only) in respect of the works executed by the Petitioner i.e., O & M such as Annual weed free maintenances of Bantumilli Main Channel, which is illegal, arbitrary, malafidy, against to the principles of natural justice, contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14, 19(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to pay the contract bill amount i.e., Rs.16,60,148/- (Sixteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight Rupees Only) for the works executed by the Petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or further orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he has participated in the tender process and stood as successful bidder. The 5th respondent has entered into the agreements with the petitioner vide agreement Nos.44/2022-23 and 45/2022-23 for execution of works particularly O&M such as Annual Weed free maintenance of channels from 7.420 to Km 14.000 in Bantumilli section for the year 2022-23 and O&M such as Annual Weed free maintenance of channels from 71.350 to Km 80.400 in Bantumilli section for the year 2022-23. The petitioner has completed the works. Though the respondent authorities have issued the Measurement Books, after inspecting the sites and expressing their satisfaction, but failed to release the bills for the amount of Rs.7,29,051/- and Rs.9,31,097/- respectively. JS,J WP No.2624/2025 3 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 were completed long back, the bills are not yet processed even after lapse of two years. 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 extracted hereunder: “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 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP) 390 JS,J WP No.2624/2025 4 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.” 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 allowed, with the following directions: i) The respondents are directed to clear the bills submitted by the petitioner and release the payment of Rs.16,60,148/- within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with interest at 12% p.a. JS,J WP No.2624/2025 5 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: 03.04.2025 DSH