1 APHC010145992026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 8100/2026 Between: 1. M/S MYB SECURITY SERVICES,, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MASA YESUBABU, S/O MASA SUBBARAO, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O D.NO.16-23-3/3C, CHITTIRAJU COLONY, ROAD NO.1, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR-522238. 2. THE KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT-533001. 3. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KAKINADA, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KAKINADA DISTRICT-533001. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. Devasri Roshan Kancharla, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, SriM. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Ms. D. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning and Ms. Ch. Naga Jyothi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Kakinada Municipal Corporation. 2. Ms. Ch. Naga Jyothi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Kakinada Municipal Corporation, has submitted the Written Instruction furnished by the Commissioner, Kakinada Municipal Corporation. Copy of it is supplied to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record. 3. The Written Instruction would indicate that the bills are admitted but the Respondents are seeking two (2) months’ time to clear the bills on the ground of paucity of funds. 4. It is a settled law that the paucity of funds is no ground to withhold the payments due to the Contractors.(Please see (1) Surya Constructions vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others : (2019) 16 SCC 794 - Para Nos.2, 3 & 4, (2) Mr. S.C. Meena, EE (Project Narela) vs. Amit Tanwar : 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8035 - Para No.48, (3) Kashmir Wood Products vs Verinag Development Authority and Others : 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 814 - Para No.8, (4) Kattam Reddy Venkateswarlu Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipalities and Urban Development Department and three others : Order dated 23.01.2026 in W.P.No.34418 of 2025 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh) 3 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Writ Petition, at the admission stage, without going into the merit, with a direction to the Respondent Authorities, to complete the entire administrative process, both inter-departmental and intra- departmental, by way of mutual cooperation and coordination, within a period of three (3) weeks from today and transfer the due amount to the bank account of the Writ Petitioner within two (2) weeks thereafter. 6. Writ Petitioner is directed to submit the bank account details to the Competent Authority within one week from today for effective compliance. 7. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:06.04.2026 Vns