APHC010058582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 3159/2025 Between: Sk Rahamthulla ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MALIREDDY GOWTHAM 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 appropriate order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.244481 along with interest for the work executed by the Petitioner pursuant to the agreement bearing No. 292 O and VM/DN/2020-21, dated 16.11.2020 for 'Removal of weed and Desilting in Dasabandham channel, Gudidalarevukalava and Panchedu Bit.1 and 2 channels of D.B Channel in Sangam Mandal of SPSR Nellore District as illegal, irregular, irrational and violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondents to pay the of Rs. 2,44,481/- along with interest for the delaying the payment to the Petitioner for the said work executed by the Petitioner and pass such other orders as may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated in the tender invited in the year 2020 for execution of work relating to removal of weed and desilting in Dasabandham channel, Gudidalarevukalava and Panchedu Bit:1 and 2 channels of D.B. Channel in Sangam Mandal of SPSR Nellore District. The 4th respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide agreement bearing No.292 O&M/DN/2020-21, dated 16.11.2020. The petitioner has completed the work. The 5th respondent has issued quality control certificate and also issued measurement books and passed final bill for an amount of Rs.2,44,481/-. 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 first and final bills were passed on 19.06.2024, the bills amount is not yet paid to the petitioner. 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 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. 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP)390 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.” 6. This Court has observed that though the works were completed long back and the bills were passed on 19.06.2024, 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 bills amount, the respondents should pay the bills amount on “first done first paid” basis. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of the law laid down by this Court in S. Srinivas case referred supra, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions: i) The respondents are directed to clear the bills submitted by the petitioner and release the final bill amount of Rs.2,44,481/- 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, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 21.03.2025 KAS 260 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 3159/2025 Date: 21.03.2025 KAS