Allowed

M/S Srirama Constructions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jul 2022WP/14306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court found the State's failure to pay an approved bill for construction work illegal and arbitrary. It directed the respondents to pay the undisputed amount within six weeks. The court noted potential interest claims for the petitioner in a separate forum.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to pay the bills covered by CFMS No.2021-343981 to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of the order.

M/S Srirama Constructions Vs The… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.14306 OF 2022

¶4

Between:-

¶5

M/s Srirama Constructions, represented by its Managing Partner Putta Raghurami Reddy .... Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary and 5 others. .... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Counsel for the Respondents :Government Pleader for Education Government Pleader for Finance & Planning Mr.G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation. ORDER :

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that the work i.e., “Repairs to building, drainage, construction of toilet block, construction of additional rooms and electrification repairs to Government B.C. Boys Bostel at Piller, Chittoor District” was entrusted to the petitioner by way of Tender process and an agreement was entered on 09.01.2019. The petitioner completed the work as per the agreement within the time stipulated. The authorities approved the bill by passing orders on 16.07.2020 for total amount of Rs.43,85,777/(net amount of Rs.39,71,878/- vide CFMS No.2021-343981) but failed to pay the bill amount till date, which is illegal and arbitrary.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per Clauses 68 and 69 of the A.P. Standard Specifications, there is a corresponding obligation to pay the bills within a period of six (06) months without any delay. Having given CFMS number to the petitioner’s bills, the respondent authorities are not paying the amount, which is illegal and arbitrary.

¶8

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the event of non-payment of the bills, the petitioner will be put to severe financial difficulties and it amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

Learned Government Pleader for Education and

¶11

Mr.G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents have not disputed the same and submits that payment/bills will be considered in due course as and when funds made available.

¶12

Having considered submissions of both the counsel and perusing the material on record, this Court notices that in spite of completion of work as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and approval of the bills the same were not paid to the petitioner. Non-payment of the bill amount is found to be illegal and arbitrary. The authorities are under statutory obligation to settle the undisputed admitted bills even as per the A.P. Standard and Specifications.

¶13

In view of the above conclusions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to pay the bills covered by CFMS No.2021-343981 to the petitioner, within a period of six (06) weeks from today. Needless to say, the petitioners may raise claim for interest, in an appropriate Forum, if they are so advised. 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending shall stand closed.

¶15

__________________ JUSTICE N.JAYASURYA

Date: 20.07.2022

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.14306 OF 2022

¶21

Date: 20-07-2022

¶22

M/S Srirama Constructions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Srirama Constructions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Chandra Naik Vs the Syndicate Bank

Panangipalli Venkata Chalapathi Rao Vs Bandaru Atchuta Swetha

Lanka Ramasiva Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Beeram Venkataramana Vs Surisetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

Nathala Suguna Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Subba Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh