APHC010538812024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.28161 OF 2024 Between: Avula Swamy Marketing, Pulivendula, YSR Kadapa District, Rep. by its Proprietor, Chava Rukmangadha Reddy, S/o.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, aged 46 years, R/o.1-111-A, Chinnakudala, Chinnakundala Lingala, YSR Kadapa District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District, and four others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Siva Nagarjuna Sidhadapu Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Finance & Planning Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.K.Narsi Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in paying an amount of Rs.12,50,119/- to the petitioner, who was the successful tenderer. The tenders were called for the repairs to R.O. plants, providing sheds for R.O. plants, removing and refixing of R.O. plants and sheds, and providing R.O. plants in different places in YSR Kadapa District. 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, more particularly paragraph No.7 wherein the details with regard to the works undertaken by the petitioner pursuant to the Tender notification and the amount of Rs.12,50,119/- to which the petitioner is entitled to were mentioned, submits that due to non-payment of the legitimate bills, the petitioner is subjected to great hardship and serious prejudice. He submits that the action of the respondent authorities in not making the payment even after successful completion of the works is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. On the other hand, Mr.K.Divakara Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent No.4, on instructions, submits that an amount of Rs.11,33,000/- was already paid and out of the balance, an amount of Rs.1,31,200/- has to be paid by the Pulivendula Area Development Authority. He has also placed a copy of the written instructions dated ….02.2026 received from the respondent No.4, for perusal of this Court and the same is taken on record. Be that as it may. 4. In the light of the admitted position about the entitlement of the petitioner and the amount due towards the works executed, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to clear the pending bills of the petitioner, after deducting the amounts already paid, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petition pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J February 17, 2026 vasu