Disposed

Ymr Constructions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Jul 2023WP/17422/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition seeking mandamus for payment of work dues, the High Court disposed of the matter by considering a previous order. The Court directed the release of the admitted amount within six weeks but left the petitioner free to approach the appropriate forum for the claimed interest.

What did the court decide?

Direct order to release the admitted/legally entitled amount to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of this order.

Ymr Constructions Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.17422 OF 2023

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

¶5

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

“. . . . . may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of amount of Rs.1,83,54,605/ even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Package No. APAM/KRNL/Kodumur/8, Consisting of 5 Road Works in Kodumur Constituency of Kurnool District vide agreement dt.27.09.2022, is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of Rs.1,83,54,605/- with interest @ 24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of abovementioned work forthwith and pass such . . . . . .”

¶7

Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Panchayat Raj and Finance Departments.

¶8

Learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Panchayat Raj

¶9

and Finance Departments, on the written instructions, dated 21.07.2023, submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the amount claimed in the Writ Petition, but the said amount was not paid to

¶10

¶11

the petitioner due to non-availability of the amount under the particular Head of Account and they are waiting for Budget Release Order (BRO). They further submitted that as an when the BRO is issued, the respondent-authorities are ready to pay the amount and and therefore, sought time for payment of the said amount.

¶12

They further submitted that, in similar set of facts this Court passed Order dated 28.06.2022 in W.P.No.17411 of 2022 wherein granted six (06) weeks’ time for payment and accordingly, prayed to consider the present case also in similar lines.

¶13

To the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner reported no objection.

¶14

Taking into consideration the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Writ Petition is also disposed of, at the admission stage, in terms of the orders passed in W.P.No.17411 of 2022, dated 28.01.2022.

¶15

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the admitted/legally entitled amount to the petitioner at the earliest, and at any rate, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

¶17

However, with regard to interest is concerned the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate forum, if so advised.

¶18

There shall no order as to costs.

¶19

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶21

24^th July, 2023.

¶22

GBS

Ymr Constructions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ymr 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

M/s. Tharu and Sons, Vs The Union of India

M/S. Raghava Constructons (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Raghava Constructions (India) Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G Sharief Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

R Ravi Vs the State of Ap

Bandaru Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy/Satish Vs the Union of India