Disposed

M/S.Sri Muralikrishna Constructions v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Mar 2023WP/4433/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the non-release of Rs. 1.70 crore due to a vigilance inquiry, the High Court directed the respondents to pass orders on the petitioner's representations within four weeks rather than deciding the payment issue immediately. The proceedings were disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

High Court directed respondents to pass appropriate orders on petitioner's representations of 26.07.2022 and 09.01.2023 within four weeks.

M/S.Sri Muralikrishna Constructions Vs the State of… — Money Laundering | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

1; . T

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

Itoi

Mo '

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE SWIT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 4433 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s.Sri Muralikfishna Constructions, D.No.3-59/1, Rajupalem, Kirlarnpudi Mandal, East Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner; G.Rambabu, S/o.Mulayya, Aged about 55 years.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Roads & Buildings (R & B) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶14

2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. .

¶15

The Chief Engineer, R & B, Major District Roads (MDRs) Sth Floor, R and B Building, M.G.Road, Vijayawada.

¶16

The Superintending Engineer, R & B Circle, Kakinada, East Godavari District (presently Kakinada District). '

¶17

The Executive Engineer, R & B Section, Peddapuram, East Godavari District (presently Kakinada District).

¶18

The Deputy Executive Engineer, R & B Sub-Division, Peddapuram, East Godavari District (Presently Kakinada District).

¶19

The Assistant Executive Engineer, R & B Section, Peddapuram, East Godavari District (Presently Kakinada District). .

¶20

The Assistant Pay & Accounts Officer, Works & Account, Kakinada, East Godavari District (presently Kakinada District).

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

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 to issue a Writ, Order or difectiph more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments of balance bill amount of Rs. 1,70,00,000 for the works i.e.. Periodic Maintenance to Samarlakota-Prathipadu Road from K.M.4/000 to 16/600 in East Godavari District through the Agreement CR No.36/2021-22, dated 31.12.2021, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the

¶23

Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release Rs. 1,70,00,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. for the pending bills forthwith for the above said works executed by the petitioner.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the ,writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith consider for payment of balance bill amount with interest @ 18% p.a. for the work executed by the petitioner i.e.. Periodic Maintenance to Samarlakota-Prathipadu Road from K.M.4/000 to 16/600 in East Godavari District'through the Agreement CR No.36/2021-22, dated 31.12.2021, forthwith, pending disposal of writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,3 to 8 : GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING

¶29

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶30

¶31

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶32

Writ Petition No.4433 of 2023

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This wnt petition was already disposed of and was uploaded. Later, on identifying a mistake in the said order dated 20.03.2023, the registry was directed to list the matter under the caption of Tor being mentioned’ today. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as learned Government Pleader for Transport, this court has recalled the order dated 20.03.2023 and passed the following modified order:2. This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of

¶35

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶36

“....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments of balance bill amount of Rs.1,70,00,000/for the works i.e.. Periodic Maintenance to SamarlakotaPrathipadu Road from K.M.4/ to 16/600 in East Godavari District through the Agreement CR.No.36/2021-22, dated. 31.12.2021, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release Rs. 1,70,00,000/- with

¶37

¶38

interest @ 18% p.a. for the pending bills forthwith for the above said works executed by the petitioner and pass.... ”

¶39

The petitioner being a registered contractor in the Civil Works like construction of bridges, roads was entrusted with works i.e., periodic Maintenance to Samarlakota-Prathipadu Road from K.M 4/000 to 16/600 in East Godavari District with an estimated cost of Rs. 396 lakhs through the agreement CR. No. 36/2021-22 dated 31.12.2021. As per the said agreement, the work is to be completed within nine months and the work was taken up in the month of January, 2022 and the same was completed by the end of March, 2022, in all respects in accordance with the agreement conditions.

¶40

The case of the petitioner is that at the time of works allotment, the petitioner has paid the security deposits for the works. Though the petitioner has completed the entire work, the petitioner was paid part bfll in the month of July, 2022 for the work of laying the Top Layer Bituminous Concrete of the Road work, to the tune of Rs. 2,24,55,402/as against the bill of Rs/3,98,00,000/. (including Escalation

¶41

¶42

of Prises), as such the petitioner has approached the respondents by way of filing a representation on 09.01.2023 for release of the remaining amount payable to him. As the said amount was not paid by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this court by way of filing the present writ petition.

¶43

5. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings has furnished a copy of the instructions of the 5* respondent vide Letter. No. W.P.No. 4433 of 2023/A1/2023 dated 16.03.2023 wherein it is admitted with regard to the Agreement entered by the petitioner with the respondent and as well as amount paid to the respondents. But, however stated that the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Rajamahendravaram has addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer (R&B) Peddapuram vide Ref.C.No. 111/RVEO/Engg/Rjvm/2022 dated 27.07.2022 that the Vigilance Department has taken up enquiry against this work and asked to submit relevant information required for taking up enquiry. Accordingly, the. information was sent on 22.08.2022. The preliminary verification of the said road has

¶44

¶45

been done. But however, the final inspection is to be carried out.

¶46

6. It is further stated that so far the agency has taken up work as per the agreement clauses and Technical Specifications of contract to the tune of Rs. 2,60,57,000 against Rs.3,48,26,204/- i.e., about 75% only, out of which payment was made for Rs. 2,24,55,402/- and probable balance amount to be paid for the work done and the price escalation is about 75 Lakhs and the rest of items of the work agreement has not been taken up by the contractor even though the agreement period was completed by 30.09.2022 and has not applied for any extension of time to execute the balance item of works till today

¶47

7. Having considered the said fact, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representations made by the petitioner on 26.07.2022 as well as 09.01.2023 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

¶49

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There

¶50

shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this Writ

¶52

Petition shall stand closed.

¶53

¶54

SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶55

To, I

¶56

I. The Principal Secretary, Roads & Buildings (R & B) Department,State of Andhra; Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ..

¶57

1. The Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶58

1. The Chief Engineer, R & B, Major District Roads (MDRs) 5*^ Floor, R & B Building, M.G.Road, Vijayawada.

¶59

1. The Superintending Engineer, R & B Circle, Kakinada, East Godavari District (presently Kakinada District).

¶60

1. The Executive Engineer, R & B Section, Peddapuram, East Godavari District (presently Kakinada District).

¶61

1. The Deputy Executive Engineer, R & B Sub-Division, Peddapuram, East Godavari District (Presently Kakinada District).

¶62

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, R & B Section, Peddapuram, East Godavari District (Presently Kakinada District).

¶63

1. The Assistant Pay & Accounts/Officer, Works & Account, Kakinada, East Godavari District (presently Kakinada District).

¶64

1. One CC to Sri. V Surya Kiran Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CCs toGP for Roads & Buildings, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶65

II. Two CCs to GP for Finance & Planning, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶66

12.TW0 CD Copies

PV PV

HIGH COURT

DATED:26/04/2023

: I

ORDER

WP.No.4433 of 2023

¶73

!o
o

¶74

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

M/S.Sri Muralikrishna Constructions v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sri Muralikrishna 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagothi Siva Kumari, Vs The Asst. General Manager

Chintham /Chintala Satish Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Srinivasulu, Vs The Managing Director

Tadepalli Tataji Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohamed Abdul Malik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Steel Exchange India Limited, Vs The Special Chief Secretary