APHC010439622024 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: 22888/2024 Between: 1. ALLU SANKARA RAO, S/O SURINAIDU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR R/O D.NO 37-11-65/3, P. R.GARDENS VISAKHAPATNAM - 530007. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, YOUTH ADVANCEMENT OF TOURISM AND CULTURE (SPORTS), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, A.P. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, A.P. 3. THE V C AND M D A P HOUSING CORPORATION, NIRMAL BHAVAN, AUTONAGAR, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, O/O A.P.S.H.C DEPARTMENT USHODAYA JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM. A.P. 5. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, O/O A.P.S.H.C DEPARTMENT USHODAYA JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM. A.P. 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, O/O A.P.S.H.C. DEPARTMENT VIJAYAWADA. A.P. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O/O A.P.S.H.C DEPARTMENT USHODAYA JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM. A.P 8. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. 2 ...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 or Order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the bill amount of Rs. 1,12,72,436/- subsequent supplementary agreement No.03(SE/APSHCL/Yelamanchili/VSP/2018-19, dated 28.12.2019 for Balance works in improvement/Modernization of sports school complex at Yelamanchili of Visakhapatnam District for an amount of Rs 1,12,72,436/- as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the payment of bill amount with interest for the delayed payment of amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above- mentioned work forthwith 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 pleased to direct the respondents to release the bill amount of Rs. 1,12,72,436/- in respect of subsequent supplementary agreement No. 03(SE/APSHCL/ Yelamanchili/ VSP/2018-19 dated 28.12.2019 for Balance works in improvement/ Modernization of sports school complex at Yelamanchili of District forthwith.Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAYUDU SUDHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR TOURISM 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 22888/2024 The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main prayer: “…..declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the bill amount of Rs. 1,12,72,436/- subsequent supplementary agreement No.03(SE/APSHCL/Yelamanchili/VSP/2018-19, dated 28.12.2019 for Balance works in improvement/Modernization of sports school complex at Yelamanchili of Visakhapatnam District for an amount of Rs 1,12,72,436/- as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the payment of bill amount with interest for the delayed payment of amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above- mentioned work forthwith…..” 2. The sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioner challenged the inaction of the respondents in not releasing balance amount of Rs.1,12,72,436-00 even after completion of the work. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning and Sri K. Mallikarjuna Rao, 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 is facing multifarious problems and the release of the amounts is just and essential. 4 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, placed a copy of the written instructions dated 30.03.2026 issued by the District Head Housing, Visakhapatnam and submits that three months time may be granted for paying the admitted amount of Rs.1,12,72,436/- to the petitioner. 6. In Mr. S. C. Meena, EE (Project Narela) Vs. Amit Tanwar 1, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, 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 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 the services 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 is 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 1 2018 SCC Online Del 8035 5 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. 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, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount payable to the petitioner, within a period of ten (10) months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 31.03.2026 ARB 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.22888 of 2024 Date: 31.03.2026 ARB