APHC010091902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7740/2025 Between: M/s Swathi Engineering Company ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MUJTAHID HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING This Court made the following: JS,J W.P.No.7740 of 2025 2 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order, or direction, particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in releasing the estimated final bill amount of Rs.6,90,000/- vide agreement No.103/2022-23, dated 14.03.2023 along with interest on execution and completion of O&M works under Irrigation Department as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to release the final bill amount forthwith and pass such other order or orders ……” 2. In spite of adjourning the matter, 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 successful bidder. The petitioner was awarded with the contract by the respondents vide Agreement No.103/2022-23 dated 14.03.2023, to execute repairs to Ponangi falling shutters in Krishna Eluru Main Canal in Eluru District. The petitioner has executed the work within the stipulated time. On 06.02.2024, the respondents have approved the bill for a sum of Rs.4,24,623/-. JS,J W.P.No.7740 of 2025 3 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 bill was approved on 06.02.2024, the bill amount 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 in which this Court held as extracted hereunder: “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 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 1 2021 Lawsuit (AP)390 JS,J W.P.No.7740 of 2025 4 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 work was completed long back and the bill was approved on 06.02.2024, 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 work 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. 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 bill submitted by the petitioner and release an amount of Rs.4,24,623/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty four thousand six hundred twenty three only) within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with interest at 12% p.a. JS,J W.P.No.7740 of 2025 5 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 3rd April, 2025 spp/cbs JS,J W.P.No.7740 of 2025 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO.7740 of 2025 Date : 03.04.2025 spp/cbs