Allowed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jul 2023WP/5117/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ orders declaring withholding of construction bill payments illegal and directing payment with interest within three months; Court disposed of writ petition granting three months for payment, noting authorities had raised no objections to the admitted bill amount.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to release admitted/legally entitled bill amount to petitioner within three months from receipt of order copy.

M/S. Raghava Constructions (India)… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

\ * ■

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5117 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/S. Raghava Constructions (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd., P. Prasad Reddy, S/o. Raghava Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Contractor, R/o. H.No.8-2603/1/27/8628, Krishnapuram Street, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶13

The Project Director, APRRP and Engineer-in-Chief, PR, Vijayawada.

¶14

The Engineer-in-Chief, PR, Vijayawada, N.T.R District. 4. The Superintending Engineer, P.R Circle, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 5. The Executive Engineer, P.I.U, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary,^Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate^{writordirection} declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of amount of Rs.1,61,04,477/- (SCP Grant) and Rs.3,56,44,053/- (Plain Grant) even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., .Consists of Twenty Seven works in punganur, Somala, Sodum, Pulicherla, Rompicherla and Chowdepalle Mandals in Chittoor District., vide Agreement No./2021-22 dated 30.12.2021, is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of Rs.1,61,04,477/(SCP Grant) and Rs.3,56,44,053/- (Plain Grant), with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of abovementioned work forthwith.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that^{inthecircumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleasei^'tq, grant stay of all further proceedings, including recovery, pursuant to pl^'imprnned order of the 2"'' Respondent, dated 17-06-'2022/18-^06-2022,and ' 18-06-2022 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. i

¶20

¶21

" Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR PANCHAYAT^RAJRURAL

¶22

DEV

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: GP FOR FINANCE AND^PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER

5VD. 5117 of2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No. 5117 of 2023

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner^{underArticle226}

¶32

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

¶33

" to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate^writor direction declaring the action of the respondents in withholding payment of amount of Rs. 1,61,04,477/(SCP Grant) and Rs.3,56,44,053/- (plain Grant) even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the words i.e., "consisting of twenty Seven works in Punganur, Somala, Sodum, Pulicherla, Rompicherls & Chowdepalle Mandals of Chittoor District" vide agreement No. /2021-22 dt. 30.12.2021, is questioned , as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to^considerfor payment of Rs. 1,61,04,477/- (SCP Grant) and Rs.3,56,44,053/(plain Grant) with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution Of abovementioned works forthwith and pass such other or further^orders

¶34

Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel^forthe petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayatraj & Rural Development for respondent Nos.l to 4 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning for respondent^Nos.5&6

«.■

M). 5117 of2023

The learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Panchayatraj^& Rural Development and for Finance & Planning, by placing^the written instructions dated 15.03.2023 on record, have collectively^{submittedthat} the authorities reported no objection for payment of^the admitted net amount of the bills and the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department has to release the funds for payment of the bill amounts to the petitioner. They further submitted that^soonafterthe funds are released, the amount due to the petitioner^{wouldbeclearedoff} and sought three (03) months.

¶39

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

¶40

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage. granting three (03) months for payment.

¶41

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 three (03) months from the date of receipt of

¶42

¶43

^.3 ‘W.<P. m. 5117 of2023

¶44

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

¶45

appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand yacated.

¶47

To,

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

Sd/- S.SRINIVAS PRASAD ASSISTAN-yiEGISTRAR SEcfloN OFFICER

¶50

¶51

The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶52

The Project Director, APRRP and Engineer-in-Chief, PR, Vijayawada. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, PR, Vijayawada, N.T.R District. 4. The Superintending Engineer, P.R Circle, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 5. The Executive Engineer, P.I.U, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 6. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶53

¶54

One CCto SRI. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High Court^{Of Andhra} Pradesh. [OUT]

¶55

Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING, High Court^of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶56

Two CD Copies

csb

HIGH COURT

♦
!
^|D^TjED:21/07/2023

ORDER

WP.No.5117 of 2023

vu ^

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Raghava Constructions (India) Pvt.Ltd., 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

Pinninti Ramesh Naidu Vs the State of Ap

M/S. Badam Constructions Vs the State of Ap

M/s Sparkles Laundry Services, Vs The Union of India

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