APHC010145282026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 9606/2026 Between: 1. SUN RISE ENGINEERING, REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR K. SIVA RAM PRASAD, S/O MADANACHARY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR R/O D. NO. 1-1/5-10, MOSQUE STREET, VIDYAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. PIN 522503 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. PIN 522503 3. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMMAN ESTATES, 3RD FLOOR, GOVERNOR PET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. PIN 520 002 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, APSIDC LTD, GUNTUR. PIN 522 007 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APSIDC LTD, VIJAYAWADA. PIN 520 002 6. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, O/O THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICE, WORKS ACCOUNTS, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. PIN 520 002 2 MRK,J W.P.No.9606 of 2026 ...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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the EMD and FSD amounts In total of Rs. 2,82,535/- (details given in para 3 of the affidavit) as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to Refund the EMD and FSD amounts in total of Rs. 2,82,535/ with interest for the delayed payment and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 direct the respondents to Refund the EMD and FSD amounts in total of Rs. 2,82,535/- with interest for the delayed payment pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A BHASKARA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 2. MALLIPUDI DHANA RAJU SC for APIDC Ltd. 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 3 MRK,J W.P.No.9606 of 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 9606 of 2026 ORDER:- The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “….to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the EMD and FSD amounts In total of Rs. 2,82,535/- (details given in para 3 of the affidavit) as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to Refund the EMD and FSD amounts in total of Rs. 2,82,535/ with interest for the delayed payment and pass….” 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 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, submits that the respondent authorities not releasing the EMD (Earnest Money Deposit) and FSD (Future Security Deposit) amounts totalling Rs.2,82,535/- in spite of specific requests made by the petitioner. In view of the non-release of the admitted amounts, the petitioner is facing multifarious problems, physically and fiscally. Hence, he submits that the release of the amounts is just and essential. 4 MRK,J W.P.No.9606 of 2026 5. On the other hand, Sri. M. Dhana Raju, learned Standing counsel for respondents, basing upon the counter affidavit averments filed on behalf of respondent No.5, states that the required amounts towards EMD and FSD amounts are uploaded in Nidhi portal and the same is in process and it will be released very soon. He further submits that in view of the administrative exigencies there is delay on the part of the respondent authorities in releasing the same and submits that three months’ time may be granted for paying the admitted amount of Rs.2,82,535/- to the petitioner. 6. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner completed the works and has yet to receive payment, this Court finds the respondents’ failure to pay is unjustified. However, taking into consideration of the ground realities to settle the admitted amounts, the respondents are granted rational time to settle the dues. 7. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractor Vs Chief General Manager and Others1, in vivid terms categorically in the following manner. “8. Be that as it may, the High Court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction…..” 1 (2025) SCC Online SC 1400 5 MRK,J W.P.No.9606 of 2026 8. It is apt to note that a mere financial incapacity/poor financial conditions, as stated by the respondent Corporation, for non-releasing of amounts after utilising the services of the petitioner, cannot be a ground. 9. In view of the above stated legal position, the respondent Corporation, being the instrumentality of 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 further 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 by the respondent Corporation. 10. So far as the interest portion is concerned, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director & Ors. Vs. Sree Balaji Constructions & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.60 of 2025) held that the award of interest on delayed payments was unsustainable in the absence of specific terms and conditions of the relevant agreement between the parties, but in the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not touched on the said point. However, the Hon’ble Division Bench in similar circumstances made it clear that the parties are at liberty to pursue their claims before an appropriate forum in accordance with the Law. 11. 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 with a direction to the respondents to release the EMD 6 MRK,J W.P.No.9606 of 2026 and FSD amounts to a total of Rs.2,82,535/- payable to the petitioner, within a period of three (03) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate civil court with regard to interest, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 05.05.2026 PBS 7 MRK,J W.P.No.9606 of 2026 161 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.9606 of 2026 Date: 05.05.2026 PBS