1 APHC010085212026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 5031/2026 Between: 1. M/S MYB SECURITY SERVICES,, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MASA YESUBABU,S/O MASA SUBBARAO AGED 63 YEARS, R/O D.NO.16-23-3/3C, CHITTIRAJU COLONY, ROAD NO.1, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR.522238 2. THE KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT.533001 3. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KAKINADA, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KAKINADA DISTRICT.533001 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M KRISHNA RAO SC FOR SKL VZM KKD MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. Devasri Roshan Kancharla, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development and Ms. Ch. Naga Jyothi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Kakinada Municipal Corporation. 2. Ms. Ch. Naga Jyothi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Kakinada Municipal Corporation, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Commissioner, Kakinada Municipal Corporation. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record. 3. It is noticed from the last page of the Written Instructions that the Commissioner has given a table of the number of cases and the amounts which are being paid in order to justify that the Corporation is facing financial crisis and therefore, seeking six months’ time for clearing the due amounts of the Writ Petitioner herein. The relevant portion of the Written Instruction is usefully extracted hereunder: “It is respectfully submitted that keeping in view of the scenario explained above, it is submitted that though we are regularly putting efforts in improvement of Revenue Collection from all possible sources, it is becoming highly difficult to clear these accumulated pending payments within a short span of time. 3 It is humbly requesting to the Hon'ble High court to issue minimum 6 months' time period may be granted to clear this bill amount of Rs.21,26,124/- including statutory deductions of Rs.1,36,935/-. Therefore, this respondent prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss this Writ Petition or issue order or orders deems fit in the circumstances of this case as submitted above.” 4. Having regard to the facts of the case and also having regard to the fact that the claim made by the Petitioner for a net amount of Rs.19,89,189/-, this Court is not inclined to grant six months’ time as requested by the Respondents. 5. View of this Court is fortified by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Constructions vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others : (2019) 16 SCC 794 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.” 4 6. 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 that the Contractor should bear the brunt of non-payment for years, of works executed by him. 7. 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.” 8. In the light of the above facts, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Writ Petition, with a direction to Respondent Nos.2 to 4, to complete the entire administrative process, both inter-departmental and intra-departmental, by way of mutual cooperation and coordination, within a period of six (6) weeks from today and transfer the due amount to the bank account of the Writ Petitioner within four (4) weeks thereafter. 9. Writ Petitioner is directed to submit the bank account details to the Competent Authority within three (3) weeks from today for effective compliance. 5 10. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 11. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:13.03.2026 Vns