Baipuneni Srinu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2024 Latest Caselaw 1134 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1134 AP
Judgement Date : 12 February, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Baipuneni Srinu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 February, 2024

                                1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
                 (Special Original Jurisdiction)

            MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
              TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                 WRIT PETITION NO: 7460 OF 2022
Between:

  1. Baipuneni Srinu,, S/o Chennaiah, Aged- 36 years,                 R/o
     Kundampalli, Pullala Cheruvu Mandal, Prakasam District.
                                                    ...PETITIONER(S)
                                    AND

  1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented through its Principal
     Secretary, Irrigation and Water Resource Department, 4th block,
     Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
  2. The Engineer in Chief Administration, Irrigation and Water
     Resource, D.No.48-10-9/1, NH Feeder Road, Currency Nagar,
     Vijayawada, Krishna District.
  3. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Special Division, Markapur,
     Prakasam District.
  4. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Special Sub-Division,
     Yerragondapalem, Prakasam Distict.
  5. The Assistant Executive Engineer, V.B.Puram Section, Irrigation
     Special Sub-Division, Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District.
  6. The Pay and Accounts Officer, State of Andhra Pradesh,
     Vijayawada, Krishna District.
  7. The Divisional Accounts Officer Works, Irrigation, Markapur,
     Prakasam District.
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS

The Court made the following:

1. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to declare the action of the

respondents in withholding and not releasing an amount of

Rs.3,74,934/- even after execution of work, as illegal, arbitrary and

violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential

direction.

2. The petitioner's case is that, the petitioner has undertaken certain

repair works in Prakasam District and successfully completed those

works. The net amount payable to the petitioner was concluded at

Rs.3,74,934/-. On completion of the agreed works, the respondent

authorities did not pay the amount till date. Though the works were

completed long back and the default liability period of two years was

also completed, still, the respondent authorities have not returned the

amount. Hence, the writ petition is preferred seeking a direction to the

respondents to pay the amount with interest.

3. Heard. No counter is filed by the respondents.

4. As can be seen, the petitioner's case is a pitiable one. The

petitioner has successfully completed the agreed works to the

satisfaction of the authorities. However, the bill amount was withheld

and not returned, most importantly, without any reason.

5. Though this Court passed an interim order on 25.03.2022,

directing the respondents to pay the finalized and approved bill amount

as per the M-Book and Quality Control Certificate to the petitioner,

within a period of six (06), the same was not paid. It is imperative for

public authorities to recognize their responsibility and promptly fulfil

contractual obligations by paying the agreed-upon amounts to

contractors. Failing to do so not only jeopardizes future contractor

engagement but also undermines the quality of work delivered. In the

present case, the withholding of the bill amount lacks justification.

Therefore, it is only fair for the petitioner to receive the payment owed to

them, along with interest.

6. Hence, writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent

authorities to pay bill amount Rs.3,74,934/- to the petitioner along with

the interest @ 6% per annum, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021 and batch

dated 12.10.2023, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

7. It would also be open to the petitioner to agitate his claim

differential amount/higher rate of interest, if any payable by the

respondents, in an appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to

costs.