APHC010042252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 2354/2025 Between: Kalluru Niranjan Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY 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 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.15,08,580/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eight Thousand and Five Eighty Only) to the petitioner for the execution of Restoration of Bund and irrigation Canal from Sluice of Atchavelli Kunta near Atchavelli Village, Pulivendula Mandal of YSR Kadapa District' vide Ag No.05EE/2023-34 dated 12.04.2023, as highly illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, unfair and in violation of the Article 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 such other order or orders as the Hon’ble 2 Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and the circumstances of the case.” 2. In spite of adjourning the matter several times, the respondents have not filed their counter affidavit/written instructions. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated in the tender process and stood as a lowest bidder. The 4th respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide agreement No.05EE/2023-24, dated 12.04.2023, for execution of work of restoration of bund and irrigation canal from sluice of Atchavelli kunta near Atchavelli Village, Pulivendula mandal, YSR District. The petitioner has completed the work. The respondent authorities recorded the same in Measurement Book and issued quality control certificate. The 4th respondent passed the final bill for a net amount of Rs.15,08,580/- on 01.02.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has borrowed amounts from third parties to execute the work and is paying huge interest. Though the final bill was passed on 01.02.2024, the bill amount of Rs.15,08,580/- is not yet paid to the petitioner even after lapse of one year. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in S.Srinivas Vs. 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 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP)390 3 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. As such, the petitioner’s right to life with respect and dignity will be deteriorated. As such, the petitioner’s right to life with respect and dignity will be defeated which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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. 24) A larger bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others V. G.C.Roy opinied 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. 5. This Court has observed that though the work was completed long back and the bill was passed on 01.02.2024, the respondents have not released the amount so far on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Since there is no dispute with regard to the execution of work 4 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. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of the law laid down by this Court in S.Srinivas’s Case (referred supra), this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) The respondents are directed to clear the bill submitted by the petitioner and release an amount of Rs.15,08,580/- in favour of the petitioner within four (4) 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 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. ______________________________ SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date : 27.03.2025 SPP 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO.2354 of 2025 Date : 27.03.2025 SPP