APHC010570932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 29840/2025 Between: Perugu Vasu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G.SAI LOCHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3. Sri A.S.C. Bose, Standing Counsel for R.3. The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.29840 OF 2025 Date of order: 31.10.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.29840 OF 2025 ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents for non-payment of the bills for the works undertaken by the petitioner. 2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent invited tenders for construction of CC road from PLR house transformer to D.No.34-62-765 in Division No.37 of Ongole Municipal Corporation. In the bid process, the petitioner was awarded the said work under Agreement No.928/2023-24, dt.05.03.2024. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner duly executed the work to the satisfaction of respondents 3 and 4. It is further submitted that after execution of the work, the petitioner has submitted a final bill for a sum of Rs.7,80,551/- and respondents 3 and 4 approved the same, but so far no payment has been made to the petitioner. -3- W.P. No.29840 OF 2025 Date of order: 31.10.2025 5. The learned standing counsel for respondents 3 to 6, on oral instructions, submits that the work undertaken by the petitioner was completed to the satisfaction of the 3rdrespondent. However, on account of lack of funds, the payment could not be made to the petitioner. 6. Considering the submissions that the work completed by the petitioner is not in dispute and on account of the lack of funds, the payment for the work undertaken by the petitioner could not be released, there shall be a direction to respondents 2, 3 and 7 to verify and release the payments due payable to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV