Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51214 (AP)

M/s. Suprama Techno Projects Private Limited, v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/29531/2025 · 2025-11-23

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010563712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29531/2025 Between: 1. M/S. SUPRAMA TECHNO PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, YARRAGANGU VENKATESH, AGE 68 YEARS, S/O YARRAGANGU HIMAVANTH PRATHIK R/0.7-1-78/A, 201, SRINIDHI CLASSIC, DHARAM KARAM ROAD, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH RAJ, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RWS AND S DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER II, RWS AND S DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RWS AND S CIRCLE, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.X 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, PENUKONDA, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased 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 payments for the works executed by the petitioner for' Providing internal connections and distribution system from existing Satya Pipe Line to newly constructed OHSRs under CPWS scheme (in Kothacheruvu, Puttaparthy, and Bukkapatnam Mandals) in Anantapuram District' through Agreement No./Aee1/3.70crore/SDP/2016-17 dated 16.01.2017 for an amount of Rs. 19,68,926/- is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and un constitution and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 19,68,926/- with 18percent per annum to the petitioner in respect of the execution of aforementioned work forthwith and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 19,68,926/- with interest at 18% for the work executed by the petitioner for " Providing internal connections and distribution system from existing Satya Pipe Line to newly constructed OHSRs under CPWS scheme (in Kothacheruvu, Puttaparthy, and Bukkapatnam Mandals) in Anantapuram District" through Agreement No. /Aee1/3.70crore/SDP/2016-17 dated 16.01.2017 for an amount of Rs. 19,68,926/- and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER: Non payment of bills for the works executed by the petitioner for providing internal connections and distribution system from existing Satya Pipe Line to newly constructed OHSRs under CPWS scheme in Kothacheruvu, Puttaparthy and Bukkapatnam Mandals, Anantapuram District, under various agreements, is the grievance of the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri N.Venkatesh, learned counsel representing Smt.Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents. 3. Smt.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, on written instructions dated 11.11.2025, submitted that the bills which are now claimed by the petitioner are admitted by the respondents and they are ready and willing to process the same and pay the amounts, however, sought four months time for such payment. 4. To the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner reported no objection. 5. Taking into consideration, the submissions of both the learned counsel, as the authorities are ready to pay the net amount to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition at admission stage. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to release the admitted/legally entitled amount to the petitioner at the earliest and at any rate, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It would be open to the petitioner to agitate its claim for interest, if any, payable by the respondents, if he is so advised, in an appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 24th November, 2025 RKS