APHC010070002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 3909/2025 Between: Jinnuri Phani Surya Viswa Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the inaction on part of the respondents herein not releasing the final bill amount worth of Rs.8,66,656/- i.e., 1) Amount Rs.4,51,421/-, M. Book No. 1897 A, Agreement No.07/2023-24, Quality Control Certificate No.58369 and 2) Amount Rs.4,16,235/-, vide its M. Book No. 2234 A, Agreement No.08/2023-24, Quality control Certificate No.58370, with interest of execution and completion of TR27 Funds works under Irrigation Department as per agreement, to the petitioner till today and causing heavy loss with interest even though total work was completed as per the agreement as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents releasing the final bills of total amount worth of Rs. 8,66,656/- for execution of completion of Irrigation works under Irrigation Department as per agreement to the petitioner forthwith and to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. In spite of adjourning the matter several times, the respondents have not filed their counter affidavit. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated in the bid invited under e-procurement platform. The 6th respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide agreement Nos.07/2023-24 and 08/2023-24dated 18.05.2023, for execution of construction of outfall sluice and tidal regulator on Benda No.4 Channel in Kommarigiripatnam Village, Allavaram Mandal (Phase-I and II) during the year 2023-2024. The petitioner has completed the work. The respondents have issued quality control certificate and passed final bill for an amount of Rs.8,66,656/-. 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 first and final bills were passed, the bills amount is not yet paid to the petitioner. 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 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. 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 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 execution of work and the bills amount, the respondents should pay the bills amount on “first done first paid” basis. 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP)390 6. 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 an amount of Rs.8,66,656/- 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: 01.04.2025 KAS 220 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO.25523 of 2024 Date: 01.04.2025 KAS