Disposed

Tummala Lakshmana Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Oct 2023WP/15625/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order disposed of a writ petition concerning non-payment of work bills. The Court observed that the respondents were willing to pay a reduced sum after deductions and granted the petitioner liberty to pursue the balance amount and interest in a competent forum, directing payment of the agreed sum within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to pay Rs. 33,06,848/- within three months; liberty granted to petitioner to pursue balance amount and interest elsewhere.

Tummala Lakshmana Rao Vs the State of Ap — Andhra Pradesh HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.15625 of 2023

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226

¶6

of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶7

“….to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of Rs.36,85,492/- even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., “Formation of Internal Roads (Block-F) in Mallayapalem Village of Gudiwada (Urban), Krishna District, (Lay Out ID No.068301LA114084” vide agreement dated 09.11.2022 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of amount of Rs.36,85,492/- with interest @ 24 % per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of abovementioned work forthwith and pass such other order or orders…..”

¶8

Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri E.V.Jagannadha Rao, learned standing counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited appearing for respondent Nos.5 & 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance Department appearing for respondent No.7.

¶9

Sri E.V.Jagannadha Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6, while placing written instructions dated

¶10

¶11

11.10.2023 submitted that, as against the claim made by the petitioner to a tune of Rs.36,85,492/-, the respondent authorities are ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs.33,06,848/- after deducting statutory deductions and the bills are submitted for payment to the Managing Director, APSHCL, Vijayawada vide Rc.No.1500/NON-OTS Infra Bills/2022- dated 18.04.2023 and sought three months time for payment.

¶12

To the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner reported no objection to receive the said amount. He submitted that, liberty may be granted to the petitioner to take steps for recovery of the balance amount.

¶13

On perusal of the written instructions dated 11.10.2023, the authorities are ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs.33,06,848/-, however the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.36,85,492/-. There is every justification in asking liberty by the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law for recovery of the balance amount.

¶14

Taking the submissions of both the learned counsel into consideration, instead of keeping this Writ Petition pending, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, with the consent of both the learned counsel, with the following direction:

¶15

¶16

“The respondent authorities are directed to pay an amount of Rs.33,06,848/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Eight only) to the petitioner at the earliest, and at any rate, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It would be open to the petitioner to agitate his claim for interest, if any, payable by the respondents, if he is so advised, in an appropriate forum. The petitioner is at liberty to take steps for recovery of the balance amount, if any, before appropriate forum in accordance with law.”

¶17

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

__________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

16.10.2023

188

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.15625 of 2023

¶26

Dated :16.10.2023

¶27

Tummala Lakshmana Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tummala Lakshmana Rao v. the State of Ap

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

Ramayanam Mohan Raju S/o. Sanjeeva Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

M/s.Sri v.B.Constructions Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Lakshmi Vigneshwara Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Brc Constructions Vs the State of Ap

M/S. Brc Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Brc Constructions Vs the State of Ap