Allowed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Apr 2023WP/6421/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court directed state authorities to pay Rs.8.78 crore to a construction company for completed work on a road project, dismissing objections regarding procedural compliance and relying on prior common orders. The claim was discharged with 24% interest.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to release Rs.8,78,29,983 with interest at 24% per annum within three months of the order.

M/S. Raghava Constructions (India)… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 6421 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Raghava Constructions (India) Pvt.Ltd., Rep. by its Director P.Prasad Reddy, S/o.late Raghava Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ; Contractor, R/o.H.No 8-2603/1/27/&28, Krishnapuram Street, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶10

The Chief Engineer, (R & B), Buildings and MDR, AP, Vijayaw4da, Krishna District.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, R and B Circle, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4. The Executive Engineer, R and B, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 5. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Finance and Planning, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of amount of Rs.8,78,29,983/- even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e.. Widening and strengthening of Kallupalle - Chowdepalle Road From KM 13/0 To 20/4 in Chittoor District vide Agreement No.(L.S)No. 26/202223, dt. 15.11.2022, is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of Rs.8,78,29,983/with • interest -@24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶15

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 consider for payment of Rs.8,78,29,983/- with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of

¶16

execution of work i.e. Widening and strengthening of Kallupalle - Chowdepalle Road From KM 13/0 To 20/4 in Chittoor District " vide Agreement No (L S)No 26/2022-23. dt 15.11.2022. ‘ ' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶21

Writ Petition No.6421 of 2023

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶24

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶25

“...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.8.78,29,983/- even afterfinalizing the bills payable to ihe petitioner in relation to the works i.e., "Widening and Strengthening of Kallupalle - Chowdepalle Road from KM 13/0 to 20/4 in chittoor'district” vide Agreement No.(L.S) No.26/2022-23, dt. 15.11.2022 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payrhent of Rs.8,78,29,983/- with interest @ 24% per annumfor the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above mentioned workforthwith.....”

¶26

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that even though the

¶27

respondents admitted that the petitioner is entitled for payment of the aforesaid amount, no payment is made. The petitioner contends that such non-payment of money is clearly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to pay the aforesaid due amount with interest to the petitioner.

¶28

At the time of hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Roads 8b Buildings has submitted a copy of instructions of the

¶29

¶30

Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Chittoor vide Lr.No.WP6421/2023/Supdt/EE/CTR 2022-23, dated 15.03.2023, wherein it is stated that the petitioner have surprisingly filed the writ petition for the part bill alleging delayed payment within two days of submission of bill without fulfilling the requirements for QC inspection and their QC report in order to claim Bill and even before uploading the Bill in CFMS and prayed this Court to dismiss the petition at once as alleged payment Bill being claimed is not a valid Bill as the requirements are not fulfilled by'the petitioner.

¶31

This Court, in various orders, including the common order dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.No. 10038 of 2021 and batch passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court had taken the view that such non payment of dues is arbitrary and that such dues need to be cleared by the respondents at the earliest.

¶32

In view of the common order passed by this Court and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel on both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release ' total amount of Rs.8,78,29,983/- to the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

¶34

. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this Writ Petition
shall stand closed.
Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department, State of Andhra
Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Chief Engineer, (R and B), Buildings and MDR, AP, Vijayaw4da, Krishna
District.
3. The Superintending Engineer, R and B Circle, Chittoor, Chittoor District.
4. The Executive Engineer, R and B, Chittoor, Chittoor District.
5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance and Planning, State of
Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur
District.
6. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate [OPUC]
7. Two CCs to GP for Roads & Buildings, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
8 Two CCs to GP for Finance & Planning, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
(OUT]
9. Two C.D. Copies
Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/04/2023

ORDER

WP.No.6421 of 2023

¶39

i'l >2 5 JUl
%* A I
t
* .

¶40

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badveli Veera Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Majji Kondamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Lakshmi Deepak Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

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

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

M/S. Nagabhushanam and Co., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh