1 APHC010084922026 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: 4959/2026 Between: 1. M/S.SRI.THIRUPATHI BALAJI VADDERA LABOUR SOCIETY, REP.BY .PRESIDENT CHALLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA S/O.KOTAIAH,AGED 40 YEARS, D.NO.C-100,3RD LINE, SWARNA BHARATHI NAGAR,GUNTUR-522006. 2. M/S.SRI.THRUMALA VENKATESWARA VADDARA LABOUR SOCIETY, REP.BY. SECRETARY, CHALLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA S/O.KOTAIAH,AGED 40 YEARS,D.NO.C-100,3RD LINE, SWARNA BHARATHI NAGAR,GUNTUR-522006. ...PETITIONER(S) 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 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GUNTUR DISTRICT.522003 3. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP.BY. COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522003 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR 2 DISTRICT. 522238 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 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 Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation. 2. Sri S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Commissioner, Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, dated 21.02.2026. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record. 3. The Written Instruction would indicate that the bills have been admitted and the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are seeking six (6) months’ time to make payments. 4. Admittedly, Agreement is executed on 16.03.2024 and there is no dispute with regard to the execution of work by the Petitioner. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Respondents cannot complain of 3 lack of funds or paucity of funds in paying the due amount to the Writ Petitioner. 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.” 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. 4 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 four (4) weeks from today and transfer the due amount to the bank account of the Writ Petitioner within two (2) weeks thereafter. 9. Writ Petitioner is directed to submit the bank account details to the Competent Authority within two (2) weeks from today for effective compliance. 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