APHC010154042024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8089/2024 Between: 1. M/S INS DIGITAL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MRMUTHYALANAGENDAR, 0/0 7-1-282, PALA MANOHAR APARTMENT, BK GUDA, BULKAMPET, HYDERABAD (HEREIN AFTER CALLED THE SUB-CONTRACTOR) ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRI SECRETARY, HEALTH MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH MEDICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 0/0 PLOT NO 9, PHYCARE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, IT PARK, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR- 522503 (HEREIN AFTER CALLED THE CORPORATION/CLIENT) 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, ANDHRA PRADESH MEDICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 0/0 PLOT NO 9, SY. NO. 49, IT PARK, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR- 522503 4. M/S NCC LTD, REP BY ITS SR VICE-PRESIDENT MR DW PRASADARAO, 0/0 NCC HOUSE, SY NO. 64, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD(HEREIN AFTER CALLED THE CONTRACTOR) ...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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in not releasing the bill amount of Rs 45,76,450/- to the Petitioner through the Respondent No. 4 as illegal, arbitrary, malafied, unjust, irresponsible and contrary to principle of natural justice Consequently, in view of this Hon’ble court Order, dated 22.03.2022 passed in WP 2511 of 2022,direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to release the bill amount of Rs 45,76,450/- to the Petitioner through the Respondent No. 4 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to call for records pertaining to the payments made by the Respondent No. 2 & 3 in connection with supplemental agreement vide No. 5(A)/Srikakulam/APMSIDC/2020-21, dated 08-02-2021and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave for filing a Counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition No. 8089 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DR D V RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR 2. GP FOR MED HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE 3. VENKATA REDDY CHITTEM (SC FOR APMSIDC) 4. S PRANATHI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not releasing the bill amount of Rs.45,76,450/- to the Petitioner through the Respondent No. 4 as illegal, arbitrary, malafied, unjust, irresponsible and contrary to principle of natural justice Consequently, in view of this Hon’ble court Order, dated 22.03.2022 passed in WP 2511 of 2022,direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to release the bill amount of Rs .45,76,450/- to the Petitioner through the Respondent No. 4 and pass…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondent No.4. 3. The claim of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner performed a contract pursuant to his agreement with the 4th respondent dated 20.10.2020. He further submits that the petitioner rendered his contract service for the benefit of respondents. Therefore the respondents are liable for payment of outstanding bills to the tune of Rs.45,76,750/-. Even though the petitioner requested for such payment, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not considered and not paid the amount. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein clearly states that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondents. He further submits that petitioner is only the sub-contractor of the respondent No.4 herein. He further submits that the contract was awarded to the 4th respondent herein but not for the petitioner. If the petitioner has any grievance, it can be resolved by initiating appropriate proceedings against the 4th respondent but not by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. He further submits that even though the petitioner herein relied upon the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.2511 of 2022 dated 22.03.2022, it is not applicable to the case in hand due to the present facts and circumstances, since there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and official respondents. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 filed a counter affidavit along with relevant documents and invited the attention of this Court to the agreement dated 20.10.2020, which was entered into between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, wherein it clearly depicts that there is an agreement between the 4th respondent and petitioner. The petitioner herein is the sub-contractor to the 4th respondent and entered into an agreement as a Sub-Contractor by agreeing all the terms of the agreement. Condition No:-22 of the agreement dated 20.10.2020 which clearly indicates that any disputes between the 4th respondent and the petitioner, the party aggrieved shall resolve the same either by mutual discussion or by appointing an arbitrator as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He further submits that in view of the clear terms of the agreement particularly arbitration clause, the present Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 6. On perusal of the material on record, the fact remains that admittedly the petitioner herein is a Sub-Contractor of the 4th respondent herein. The 4th respondent was awarded a contract by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for upgradation/strengthening of AH/CHC at various places, for a value of contract amounting to Rs.23,36,97,411/-. On perusal of the said agreement, this Court is of the considered view that there is an agreement between the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 4 only. No agreement has been executed between the petitioner herein and the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 7. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4, the petitioner herein is only a sub-contractor and any grievance arising out of the sub-contract should be resolved by both of them as per the terms of the agreement only. 8. It is settled law that in the absence of any privity of contract with the official respondent Nos.1 to 3, the party to the other contract cannot enforce any rights against the official respondents. The privity of contract is the essence to claim rights against respondent Nos.1 to 3. In the absence of the same, no Writ Petition is maintainable understanding the jurisdiction of this Court, more particularly the contractual obligations between the two third parties under the Writ jurisdiction of this Court. 9. Hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 29.01.2026 M K K 267 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION.No.8089 of 2024 Date: 29.01.2026 M K K