1 APHC010006352026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 819/2026 Between: 1. INNAMURI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O. D.NO.6-2-185, BOMBAY ROAD, BUCHIREDDYPALEM TOWN AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524305 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237. 3. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PRIME HILL CREST, VADDESWARARN, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522501. 4. BUCHIREDDYPALEM NAGAR PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BUCHIREDDYPALEM TOWN AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524305. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri R. Lakshmikar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the Departments of Finance & Planning and Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and Sri Gudapati Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.4. 2. Sri G. Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.4, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Commissioner, Buchireddypalem Municipality dated 24.01.2026. Copy of it is supplied to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record. Paras 3 to 5 of the Written Instruction are usefully extracted hereunder: “3. In reply to the representation of the petitioner dated:20.09.2025, I humbly submit that we taken further steps for making payments of the arrears professional fee to the petitioner. And as of now we have made the arrangement of part payment to the petitioner of Rs.45,000/- and the bill was sent to Pre-Audit Department as per the office procedure for the period of three months from 01.05.2021 to 31.07.2021 from the Total arrears of 33 months of Rs.4,95,000/- due to lack of funds in the Municipality. 4. In the said above circumstances, I humbly submit that the remaining arrears should be made to the petitioner in part payments within a short period. 5.In the above said circumstances this respondent is not paid professional fee to the petitioner and not intentionally violate the principles of natural justice articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.” 3 3. The above extract would indicate that the Respondents have admitted the amount and that the arrears for 33 months, totalling Rs.4,95,000/-, could not be paid by the Municipality to the Writ Petitioner due to lack of funds. This Written Instruction would make it clear that the amounts due to the Writ Petitioner, as indicated above, are not disputed. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Constructions vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others : (2019) 16 SCC 794, held in Para Nos.3 & 4, which are usefully extracted hereunder: “3. It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22-3- 2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No. 25216 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated 2-5-2014 [Surya Construction v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 6071] dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553] ) 4. This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2009, we direct Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessary payment within a period of four weeks from today. Given the long period of delay, interest @ 6% p.a. may also be awarded.” 5. In Mr. S.C. Meena, EE (Project Narela) vs. Amit Tanwar : 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8035, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, held in Para No.48, which is usefully extracted hereunder: 48. It is equally strange that the Corporation seeks to justify the non-payment on the ground of non-availability of funds for medicines or hospital items or pensions or salaries of the Corporation. Running the Corporation is not the business of the Contractor. It is for the Corporation to manage its affairs as per the funds available with it and it cannot be a defense 4 that the Contractor should bear the brunt of non-payment for years, of works executed by him. 6. In Kashmir Wood Products vs Verinag Development Authority and Others : 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 814, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, held in Para No.8, which is usefully extracted hereunder: “8. It is astonishing to note that despite there being no dispute as regards the claim of the petitioners, the respondents have sit over the matter for the last more than six years and they have not released the payment in favour of the petitioner. If the requisite funds were not available with the respondents, they had no business to allot the work to the petitioner and if in spite of financial constraints, the respondents have made the petitioner to execute the work out of his own funds, it is their bounden duty to reimburse the petitioner at the earliest, that too with interest.” 7. In this view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Writ Petition, with a direction to the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 to pay the entire amount by completing all the formalities within a period of eight (8) weeks from today and transfer the due amount to the bank account of the Writ Petitioner within four (4) weeks thereafter. 8. Writ Petitioner is directed to submit the bank account details to the Respondent No.4 within four weeks from today for effective compliance. 9. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:27.01.2026 Vns