THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.15022 OF 2026 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the action of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in permitting or proposing to permit release of payments under Agreement No.16/CE-I/APIIC/2023-24 dated 01.02.2024 into the disputed ICICI Bank Account No. 253705003955 of the Joint Venture "MILESTONE GARRISON", without verifying the lawful authorization and despite the petitioner's representation dated 18.05.2026, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further seeks a direction to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to withhold all further payments to the said account pending verification. 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 entered into a Joint Venture Agreement dated 05.01.2024. Pursuant to the tender process conducted by NV,J W.P.No.15022 of 2026 2 Respondent No. 2, the parties to the Joint Venture emerged as the successful bidders and were awarded the contract. 3. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Joint Venture Agreement, the petitioner is the Lead Member holding 90% share in the profits, investments, expenditures, and losses of the Joint Venture (hereinafter ‘Joint Venture’), while Respondent No. 5 holds the remaining 10% share. It is stated that Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were informed of the bank details, as furnished by the petitioner, namely the account maintained with Union Bank of India, Tirupati Branch, through which the bank guarantee was drawn in complying with the contractual requirements. It is further submitted after paucity of time, Respondent No. 5, has created certain documents and projected himself as Managing Partner and the authorized signatory of the Joint Venture for opening and operating a bank account with ICICI Bank, Tirupati Branch. Based on such documents, Respondent No.2 credited payments for the works already executed and approved by the Joint Venture, into its current account with the ICICI Bank, from which Respondent No. 5 allegedly withdrawn the NV,J W.P.No.15022 of 2026 3 amounts contrary to the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement. The petitioner brought these facts to the notice of Respondent No.2 through a representation dated 18.05.2026, leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 contends that the dispute is purely inter se between the petitioner and Respondent No. 5. It is submitted that Respondent No. 5 was duly authorized to open and operate the bank account on behalf of JV and to execute the works on behalf of the Joint Venture (JV) vide agreement for authorization of bank account dated 19.05.2025. Pursuant thereto, a bank account was opened with ICICI Bank and the same was duly communicated to Respondent No.2. Accordingly, the payments for the work executed were credited into the said account. It is further contended that Clause 13 of the Joint Venture Agreement provides for resolution of disputes through arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, the petitioner is provided an alternative remedy and ought to have invoked arbitration proceedings instead NV,J W.P.No.15022 of 2026 4 of filing the present Writ Petition, and in view of the agreed dispute resolution mechanism, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2/APIIC placed on record the written instructions dated 04.06.2026 issued by the Zonal Manager, APIIC Limited, Chittoor. As stated therein, the lead partner of the Joint Venture submitted the fourth part bill along with revised bank account details bearing Account No. 253705003955, IFSC Code ICIC0002537, ICICI Bank, Tirupati Branch. Based on the revised details furnished, the bill was processed and forwarded to the Head Office for arranging payment. It is further stated that APIIC was not informed by the petitioner regarding any objection to the change of bank account details at the relevant time. According to APIIC, the decision to change the bank account details was taken by the contractor in accordance with the internal arrangements of the Joint Venture and APIIC had neither role nor involvement in the matter. 6. Based on the said instructions, learned Standing Counsel submits that Respondent No. 2 processed and released payments to the bank account details furnished by the person representing NV,J W.P.No.15022 of 2026 5 the Joint Venture. Since the petitioner disputes the authority of Respondent No. 5 to submit such details and operate the ICICI Bank account, Respondent No. 2 may conduct an inquiry or examine the relevant documents and determine the issue in accordance with the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2/APIIC, and the learned counsel for Respondent No. 5. 8. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that the primary allegations are directed against Respondent No. 5, along with allegations of collusion against Respondent No. 2. The instructions furnished by Respondent No. 2 indicate that payments were released based on the bank account details provided by a person claiming to be duly authorized on behalf of the Joint Venture. However, the petitioner disputes the genuineness and validity of such authorization. Since contradictory claims are made by the partners of the Joint Venture, Respondent No. 2/APIIC ought to verify whether the authorization letter relied upon is genuine and whether it was issued by a duly authorized representative of the NV,J W.P.No.15022 of 2026 6 Joint Venture. In view of the dispute between the Joint Venture partners, Respondent No. 2 proceed solely on the claim of either party without conducting a proper investigation and inquiry and after arriving at a conclusion regarding the genuineness of the subject authorization and the transactions, the respondent corporation shall proceed in accordance with the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement and the contract or otherwise, it may call for amicable settlement between both the parties or relegate for settlement of disputes as per the terms of J.V, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the present writ petition is not maintainable, since the dispute is solely between the petitioner and Respondent No.5 is valid and merit submission and accordingly the Court is not exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction and made the observations as stated above to limit the intervention and involvement of the 2nd respondent hereafter. Hence, both parties are hereby directed to resolve the disputes as per the terms of J.V. only. 9. With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. NV,J W.P.No.15022 of 2026 7 10. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 16.06.2026 SP NV,J W.P.No.15022 of 2026 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.15022 OF 2026 Date: 16.06.2026 W SP