M Sathish Kumar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2024 Latest Caselaw 1302 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1302 AP
Judgement Date : 15 February, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M Sathish Kumar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 February, 2024

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
                                AMARAVATI                                 [ 3329 ]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)




             THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
                TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                 PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                    WRIT PETITION NO: 2520 OF 2024

Between:

  1. M Sathish Kumar Reddy,, S/o.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ
     Contraetor, R/o. Main Road, Nayudupalem, Kodavaluru, SPSR Nellore
     District, Pincode 524316.

                                                              ...PETITIONER(S)
                                    AND

  1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary,
     Department of Irrigation (Water Resources Department), Secretariat
     Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
  2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department
     of Finance and Planning, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
     Guntur District.
  3. The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Nellore, SPSR Nellore
     District.
  4. The Executive Engineer, WRD, Nellore Central Division, Nellore, SPSR
     Nellore District.
  5. The Chief Executive Officer, AP CFMS Office, 6th Floor, C-Block,
     Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna 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 topleased 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. 1,16,091/- vide M Book No. 15 NCC/18-19, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e.. Removal of Slit in the Canal Bed of Sai Kalava near Mikkilimpeta in Kodavalur Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, vide Agreement No. 404 DN/NC/2018-19, dated 24.09.2018 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay for payment of amounts of Rs.1,16,091/- vide M Book No. 15 NCC/18-19 with interest @24percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above- mentioned work forthwith and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 please to direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs. 1,16,091/- vide M Book No. 15 NCC/18-19 with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of works i.e. Removal of Slit in the Canal Bed of Sai Kalava near Mikkilimpeta in Kodavalur Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, vide Agreement No. 404 DN/NC/2018-19, dated 24.09.2018, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI BATHALA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP)

The Court made the following:

The petitioner had been awarded the contract of various works

under various schemes in Nellore District. After execution of the said

contract, a final bill was prepared for a sum of Rs.1,16,091 /- 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 the

aforesaid sum of money, 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, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation

would submit that the respondents have admitted the claim of the

petitioner. Soon after the release of budget by the government, the

payment will be made 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,