Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9433 (AP)

K H V V PRASAD AND CO v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/22707/2026 · 2026-09-07

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010417372026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 22707 OF 2026 Between: 1. K H V V PRASAD AND CO, Sri Sini Avenue Road No.3, Flat No. 401, Maruthi Co-Operative Colony, Plat No. 80, Patamata, Vijayawada. Rep.by its Managing Partner Kantamneni Hari Veera Vara Prasad. 2. Kantamneni Hari Veera Vara Prasad,, S/o. Venkata Krishnaiah, aged 66 years, Occ Contractor, R/o. Sri Sini Avenue Road No.3, Flat No. 401, Maruthi Co-Operative Colony, Plat No. 80, Patamata, Vijayawada. ...Petitioners AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Principal Secretary Housing Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District. - 522239 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District. - 522239 3. A P State Housing Corporation Ltd, 2nd Floor, SP River View Building, Tadepalli, Amaravati, Represented by its Managing Director. - 522503 4. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. - 530001 2 5. The Superintending Engineer, (Delegated with Powers of CE) APSHCL Head office, Vijayawada. 6. The Project Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 7. The Executive Engineer, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd, Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam. 8. The Director of works and Account Officer, Nidhi Bhavan, Mangalagiri IT Park, Behind APIIC Building, Mangalagiri, Guntur District ...Respondents 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 toissue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of balance of Rs.34,12,493/- even after ifnalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Construction of MRO Office building at Nakapalli Mandal of Visakhapatnam District through Agreement No.10/SE/APSHCL/Nakkapa lli (MRO)NSP/2018-19, dated 27-04-2018 for an amount of Rs.34,12,493/- as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of amount of Rs.4,12,493/- to the petitioners in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith Counsel for the Petitioners: RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondents: MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOUSING Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 22707 OF 2026 The Court made the following order: The petitioners had been awarded the contract of work(s) under the subject scheme in Visakhapatnam District. After execution of the said contract, after taking part payments from the Respondents, a final bill was prepared for the remaining sum of Rs.34,12,493/- as per the sanctioned orders. As the payment of the said amount has not been made by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that even though the respondents admitted that the petitioner is entitled for payment of Rs.34,12,493/-, no payment is being made. The petitioner contends that such non-payment of money is clearly arbitrary and high-handed requiring the interference of this Court. 3. This Court, in various orders, including the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch had taken the view that such non-payment of dues is arbitrary and that such dues need to be cleared by the respondents at the earliest. 4. On the other hand, Sri K. Mallikharjuna Moorthy, learned Standing Counsel for the Housing has placed on record the written instructions received from the District Head Housing, Visakhapatnam admitting net amount of 4 Rs.34,12,493/- payable to the petitioner. But, the subject bill was not uploaded for payment. Soon after uploading of the bill, an amount of Rs.34,12,493/- will be paid to the petitioner. 5. In view of the aforesaid directions of this Court in various cases and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Housing, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the balance amount of Rs.34,12,493/- to the petitioner within a period of three (03) months. No order as to costs. 6. In fact there is no admission by the Respondents either in their Written Instructions regarding the payment of interest component or by oral submissions made by the Government Pleader/Standing Counsel for Respondents. Much less, the interest component as claimed by the petitioner was neither admitted nor approved at their final bills of the respondents. Hence, in the absence of any such admission, this Court is not inclined to grant any specific amount as it admitted under the head of interest. However, the Petitioner is entitled for interest component as per the terms of Agreement if permits and also in the case of delayed payments, as per the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.724 of 2021. Therefore, the respondents are hereby directed to pay admitted amount Rs.34,12,493/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. As far as interest is concerned, if both parties have agreed regarding the quantum of amount towards interest, the same should be paid along with 5 admitted amount, if not, petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation or a Memo of Statement requesting for payment of interest. If petitioner is entitled for the same, after such submission of representation or Memo, the concerned respondent authorities shall consider and pass appropriate orders after providing opportunity of hearing to both parties in case of rejection or reduction of interest amount claimed by the petitioner, within a period of three (03) months thereafter. 8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Dated: 08.09.2026 Mnr 6 169 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.22707 OF 2026 Dt: 08.09.2026 Mnr