APHC010486312024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25131/2024 Between: 1. M/S P.V.S.R CONSTRUCTIONS,, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.HARI PRASAD REDDY S/O. SURENDRANATH REDDY, AGE 40 YEARS, R/O 1-10, KONDAPURAM VILLAGE, DORNIPADU MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS CIRCLE, KURNOOL,KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDING DIVISION, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments for the works executed by the petitioner providing 'Widening and Strengthening the road from Kms 13/100 to 23/400 of Allagadda - Ahobilam road in Kurnool District (part of work)' through the Agreement No. 70/2022-23, dated 26.12.2022 for an amount of Rs. 2,46,20,496 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and un-constitution and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 2,46,20,496/- with 18percent per annum to the petitioner in respect of the execution of aforementioned works forthwith and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 2,46,20,496/- with interest at 18% for the work executed by the petitioner providing <Widening and Strengthening the road from Kms 13/100 to 23/400 of Allagadda - Ahobilam road in Kurnool District (part of work)= through the Agreement No. 70/2022-23, dated 26.12.2022 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25131 OF 2024 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 declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments for the works executed by the petitioner providing <Widening and Strengthening the road from Kms 13/100 to 23/400 of Allagadda-Ahobilam road in Kurnool District (part of work)= through the Agreement No.70/2022-23, dated 26.12.2022 for an amount of Rs.2,46,20,496 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and un-constitution and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,46,20,496/- with 18% per annum to the petitioner in respect of the execution of aforementioned works forthwith and to pass such other order or orders…= 2. Heard Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents. 3. The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments for the works executed by the petitioner i.e., <Widening and Strengthening the road from Kms 13/100 to 23/400 of Allagadda-Ahobilam road in Kurnool District (part of work)= through the Agreement No.70/2022-23, dated 26.12.2022 for an amount of Rs.2,46,20,496. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings filed counter- affidavit asserting that LS-I & part bill was paid to the petitioner for an amount 4 of Rs.4,95,13,960/-. The balance amount was recorded and check measured quantities in LS-II & final bill, the 5th Respondent has passed the bill for Rs.2,78,40,222/- as gross amount and net amount for Rs.2,46,20,496/-. While processing/uploading the bill in NIDHI Portal, error is coming like >Insufficient Funds at HOD Level?. It is further submitted that budget will be released based on the seniority of the State QC inspection dates and reports. As and when the budget is released, the bill will be uploaded. 5. Insofar as the interest component, the respondents contended that the petitioner should approach the appropriate forum, relying on the order of the Division Bench in W.A.791 of 2022 dated 26.04.2022. The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge?s order, directing the petitioner to seek relief regarding interest from the appropriate forum. In a catena of cases this Court had held that where dispute revolves round questions of fact, the matter ought not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the present case, the respondents have not disputed the payment due to the petitioner for the work executed and the respondents have manifested in their counter-affidavit that they will pay the amount to the petitioner and they are unable to the pay due to <Insufficient Funds at HOD Level=, once the work executed by the petitioner to the respondents is admitted and the payment due to the petitioner is not disputed by the respondents, there was hardly no need for this Court to refer the matter to any forum or for arbitration for passing an arbitral award assuming that any 5 condition in the agreement to that extent. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to pay the admitted amount to the petitioner. 7. In The D.F.O., South Kheri And Ors. vs Ram Sanehi Singh1, the Hon?ble Apex Court held that when a State decides not to pay the dues with mala fide, with ulterior motives or arbitrarily or when the State avoids payment of the dues with mala fide, with ulterior motives, arbitrarily or when the State discriminates, while making payment dues, such a decision of the State not to pay or such an act of the State of not paying its dues cannot be said to be wholly beyond the reach of Article 226, for asking the writ Court to do is to force the State to act in accordance with its constitutional obligation by adhering to the letter and spirit of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions: (a) The respondents are directed to clear the due amount to the petitioner within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (b) Sum due to the petitioner would mean, the sum arrived after statutory deductions. If there is any dispute regarding statutory recoveries, the petitioner is at liberty to communicate/interface with the respondents. 1 (1971) 3 SCC 864 6 (c) With regard to interest, the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate forum. (d) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 04.02.2026 KBN 7 211 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25131 of 2024 Date: 04.02.2026 KBN