APHC010142122026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 8035/2026 Between: 1. KETHI KRISHNA REDDY, S/O.K PARANDHAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O.D.NO. 1/110/2, KOTHURU, AKBARABAD VILLAGE, A.S.PET (M), SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, PINCODE 524302. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE 522238. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED (APSHCL), PLOT NO 11 AND 12, BEHIND BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, PINCODE 520007 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, PINCOD 524001. 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED (APSHCL), NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, PINCODE 524001. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH CIRCLE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, PINCODE 524001. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH, SPECIAL DIVISION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, PINCODE 524001. ...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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents not releasing the amount of Rs. 12,31,447/-, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu - Providng Temporary Water Supply for Construction Activity under Pedalandariki Illu at A Jagananna Colony Kattubadi Palem 1 - 248 Plots (1st Ward) in Buchireddypalem Layout ID - 09182LA001421), videNagara Panchayat Agreement No. EE(PH) Nellore, Agt.No. 28/2022-23, dated 24.06.2022 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs. 12,31,447/- with interest @24 per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above- mentioned work forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MODAPOTHULA SUMALATHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “declaring the action of the Respondents not releasing the amount of Rs. 12,31,447/-, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu - Providng Temporary Water Supply for Construction Activity under Pedalandariki Illu at A Jagananna Colony Kattubadi Palem 1 - 248 Plots (1st Ward) in Buchireddypalem Layout ID - 09182LA001421), videNagara Panchayat Agreement No. EE(PH) Nellore, Agt.No. 28/2022-23, dated 24.06.2022 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs. 12,31,447/- with interest @24 per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above- mentioned work forthwith and pass” 3 2. The sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioner challenged the inaction of the respondents in not releasing the amounts even after completion of the entire works entrusted to him. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning and Sri K. Mallikarjuna Moorthy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, submits that in view of the non-release of the amounts, the petitioner, who is aged about 57 years, is facing multifarious problems and the release of the amounts is just and essential. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, places a copy of the written instructions dated 31.03.2026 issued by the District Head Housing, SPSR Nellore District and submits that three months' time may be granted for paying the admitted amount of Rs.12,52,679/- to the petitioner. 6. In Mr. S.C. Meena, EE (Project Narela) Vs. Amit Tanwar, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi1, at para No.48, had held as under: “…..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 1 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8035 4 Contractor should bear the brunt of non-payment for years, of works executed by him…….” 7. The financial incapacity/poor financial conditions, as stated by the 2nd respondent Corporation, for non-releasing of amounts after utilising theservices of the petitioner, cannot be a ground. It is relevant to note the case of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 34 held as follows: “…….The State may not be liable in relation to the day to day functioning of the Companies, but its liability would arise on its failure to perform the constitutional duties and functions by the public sector undertakings, as in relation thereto the State's constitutional obligations The State acts in a fiduciary capacity. The failure on the part of the State in a case of this nature must also be viewed from the angle that the statutory authorities have failed and/or neglected to enforce the social welfare legislations enacted in this behalf e.g. Payment of Wages Act. Minimum Wages Act etc Such welfare activities as adumbrated in Part IV of the Constitution of India indisputably would cast a duty upon the State being a welfare State and its statutory authorities to do all things which they are statutorily obligated to perform…….” 8. In view of the above stated legal position, the 2nd respondent, being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is bound to release the amount for the undisputed works done by the petitioner, without any delay. A mere financial incapacity or paucity of funds cannot be a valid defence for non-fulfilment of such statutory obligations, more particularly, when the works executed by the petitioner are admitted and satisfactory to the 2nd respondent Corporation. 5 9. In the light of the above legal position, coupled with the fact that the liability for the undisputed works was admitted by the respondents, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release the amount payable to the petitioner, within a period of three (3) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 31.03.2026 GVK 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.8035 of 2026 Date:31.03.2026 GVK 250