M HARSHAVARDHAN REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WP/902/2026 · 2026-01-28
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14500 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14500 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010006472026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.902 of 2026 Between:
1. M HARSHAVARDHAN REDDY, S/O VEERANARAYANA REDDY, AGED BOUT 46 YEARS, R/O H.NO.2/46-B, ANKALAMMAGUDDURU VILLAGE, SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, APRDC DIVISION, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, WORKS AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S):
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 Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the admitted contract bill amount of Rs.23,91,6821- lakhs for the work executed by the petitioner under the 'Urgent repairs to scored berms from k.m.82/0 to 91/0 and K.m.93/0 to 98/0 of K.G Road of NH.340C in Nandyal District in the state of A.P' through the agreement No.20/2023-24 dt.17.01.2024, and with 6percent interest per annum is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and un constitution and in
2
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release the admitted contract bill amount of Rs.23,91,6821- lakhs with 6percent interest per annum to the petitioner in respect of the execution of aforementioned work forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. GNANESWARA RAO MITTIREDDI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS
2.
GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
"……to issue Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the admitted contract bill amount of Rs.23,91,6821/- lakhs for the work executed by the petitioner under the 'Urgent repairs to scored berms from k.m.82/0 to 91/0 and K.m.93/0 to 98/0 of K.G Road of NH.340C in Nandyal District in the state of A.P' through the agreement No.20/2023-24 dt.17.01.2024, and with 6percent interest per annum is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and un constitution and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release the admitted contract bill amount of Rs.23,91,6821- lakhs with 6 per cent interest per annum to the petitioner in respect of the execution of aforementioned work forthwith and pass such other orders……"
2. Precisely, the Writ Petition is filed against the action of the respondents in withholding the payments of the admitted bill net amount of Rs.23,91,682/- even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the work, i.e., “Urgent repairs to scored berms from k.m.82/0 to 91/0 & K.m.93/0 to 98/0 of K.G.Road of NH.340C in Nandyal District in the State of A.P.”
3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader furnished written instructions dated 27.01.2026 across the bench. On careful perusal of the said written instructions, it manifests that the respondents have not disputed the work executed by the petitioner, inter alia, it is stated that soon after receipt of the funds, the work bills would be submitted to the Pay & Accounts Officer, Kurnool for payment. 4
4. 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 written instructions that they will pay the amount to the petitioner soon after receipt of the funds.
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 condition in the agreement to that extent. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to pay the admitted amount to the petitioner. 5. In The D.F.O., Sough Kheri And Ors. Vs. Ram Sanehi Singh reported in (1971) 3 SCC 864, 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 of the Constitution of India, 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. 6. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (a) The respondents are directed to clear the due amount to the petitioner within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5
(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/interfere with the respondents. (c) With regard to interest, the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 29.01.2026
siva
6
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.902 of 2026
Date: 29.01.2026
siva