APHC010048762025 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.2722 OF 2025 Between: G. Sridhar Gopala Krishna --- Petitioner and The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and 5 others --- Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Venkat Chalasani 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 a Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents herein in not making payment of Final Bill pertaining to Agreement No.53/2020-21, dated 20.06.2020 for a final bill amount of Rs.7,22,220/- vide DR No.102/2019-20, dated 10.03.2020 agreement executed between the Petitioner and 6th Respondent herein, basing upon the Contract Final Bill issued in JS,J WP No.2722/2025 2 that regard, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents herein to make payment of the final bill to the Petitioner in respect of the above said agreement forthwith, in accordance with Sections 15 & 16 of the MSME Act, 2006 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he has participated in the tender process and stood as successful bidder. The 6th respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide agreement No.53/2020- 21, dated 20.06.2020, for execution of the work of O&M Desilting of Naidu codu minor drain from 0.00 to 5.600 and Kolleti road puntha codu 0.00 to 3.00 Km in village limits of Pedanindrakolanu, Nidamarru Mandal of West Godavari District, during the year 2020-2021. The petitioner has completed the work within the stipulated time. Though the respondent authorities have accorded administrative sanction and approved the final bill for an amount of Rs.7,22,220/- but did not release the amount to the petitioner. 3. 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 work is completed long back, the bill amount is not yet processed even after lapse of more than four years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, this JS,J WP No.2722/2025 3 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.2722/2025 4 4. This Court has observed therein 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 work and the final bill amount herein, 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 allowed, with the following directions: i) The respondents are directed to clear the bill submitted by the petitioner and release the payment of Rs.7,22,220/- 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 (1) 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. ,, _________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 03.04.2025 DSH