M/s. Chaitanya Engineering Works, Viskhapatnam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/13543/2026 · 2026-06-16
Harinath N
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3058 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3058 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010236192026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13543/2026 Between:
1. M/S. CHAITANYA ENGINEERING WORKS, VISKHAPATNAM,, M/S.
CHAITANYA ENGINEERING WORKS, VISKHAPATNAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER B NARAYANAMURTHY,
S/O.B SAMUDRAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. FLAT NO. 103, VISWAS GRAND, NEELAKANTHAPURAM, SARIPALLI, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, PINCODE 531173
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE
522238. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE 522238. 3. THE KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, PINCODE
533004. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, PINCODE
2
533004. ...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 not releasing the amount of Rs.9,14,481/- vide M Book No. 505/24-25, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e.. Supply and Delivery of 40-70 Watt and 90-100 watt LED PCfe Panels for Maintenance of LED Street Lighting in Kakinada Municipality Corporation, vide Agreement No. 29/2024- 25, dated 21.09.2024 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs.9,14,481/- vide M Book No. 505/24-25 to the petitioner in respect of execution of above- mentioned work forthwith and pass such 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 pay for payment of amount of Rs.9,14,481/- vide M Book No. 505/24-25 to the petitioner in respect of execution of works i.e. Supply and Delivery of 40-70 Watt and 90-100 watt LED PCB Panels for Maintenance of LED Street Lighting in Kakinada Municipality Corporation, vide Agreement No. 29/2024-25, dated 21.09.2024, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such other order Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.
MODAPOTHULA SUMALATHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KRISHNA RAO M
2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following:
3
Order:-
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entrusted with the work of supply and delivery of 40–70 Watt and 90–100 Watt LED PCB panels for maintenance of LED street lighting in Kakinada Municipality Corporation, vide Agreement No.29/2024-25, dated 21.09.2024. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner had completed the work entrusted to him and that the competent authority of the respondents had also approved the payment due and payable to the petitioner. The respondents have also recorded the progress of the work and the amounts due and payable to the petitioner in the M-Book. 3. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning. 4. During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 submits that the work is completed and that the petitioner had also submitted his final bill. 5. Considering the submissions that the work completed by the petitioner is not disputed and also considering the endorsement in the M-Book, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage, directing the respondents to verify and release the payment due to the
4
petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 17.06.2026 PNS