Disposed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Apr 2023WP/6815/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a contractor sought direction to pay pending final bill and administrative sanction. The Court directed respondents to process payment upon obtaining revised sanction within three months after the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay bills as soon as revised administrative sanction is obtained, preferably within three months.

M/S. Nagabhushanam and Co., Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.6815 of 2023

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶5

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶6

“....to issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or orders or direction declaring the inaction of the Respondents in obtaining the administrative sanction and finalising the final bill and releasing payments in terms of L.S.Agreement C.R.No.83/2012-13 dated 24.01.2013 including the supplementary agreeement C.R.No.79/2013-14 dated 13.10.2013 based on the final bill certificate issued by 4th Respondent on 20.06.2014 and in terms of the petitioners letters dated 07.02.2020 and 30.11.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, amounts to non-discharge of a legal obligation conferred on them and is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith finalise the final bill and make payment in terms of L.S. Supplemental Agreement C.R.No.79/2013-14 dated 13.11.2013 final bill certificate issued by 4th Respondent on 20.06.2014 and in terms of the letter of the Petitioner dated 30.11.2020 and pass.....”

¶7

The petitioner is a registered ‘Special Class Contractor’ with

¶8

the Government of Andhra Pradesh and a Partnership Firm registered with the Registrar of Firms, Hyderabad bearing No.952 of 2001 and is engaged in the construction of bridges, roads, aqueducts and irrigation projects besides other infrastructure activities for more than four decades and the work relating to the “Strengthening of Dachepalli – Tangeda Road from KM 0.000 to 13.000 in Guntur District” was awarded to the petitioner through Cr.Agt.No.83/2012-13, dated 24.01.2013 for an amount of

¶9

¶10

Rs.3,30,97,942/- by the 3^rd respondent with a period of completion of one year.

¶11

The petitioner further submitted that the respondents felt certain deviations necessary to suit the site conditions prior to the commencement of both the B.T. and C.C. road and such the 2^nd respondent accorded permission for deviation and the original estimate for the work was revised from Rs.3,50,00,000/- to Rs.3,85,00,000/- vide memo No.Plan work/NRT/D-T Road/DEE 1/AEE 1/2012 dated 24.05.2013 and a supplemental agreement through L.S.Supplemental Cr.Agt.No.79/2013-14 dated 13.11.2013 was concluded between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. The extension of the time period without liquidated damages was accorded up to 31.03.2014.

¶12

The petitioner had completed the work in all respects by March 2014 and requested the respondents to pay the final bill. But the respondents failed to pay the final bill even after a lapse of more than three and a half years. Hence, the petitioner, on 12.12.2017, addressed a letter to the 4^th respondent.

¶13

The 4^th respondent prepared a working estimate of Rs.3,59,99,000/- and forwarded the same to the 3^rd respondent and it was approved on 13.05.2019. Despite agreeing to receive the final bill in accordance with the original agreement, no

¶14

¶15

payment was made to the petitioner till then and hence, they made several representations on 07.02.2020 and 30.11.2020 but there is no reply from the respondents. Hence, this writ petition.

¶16

Learned Government Pleader has furnished a copy of the instructions of the 4^th respondent vide Lr.No.Instruction notes/EC1/2022-2023 dated 18.03.2023 wherein it is stated that the petitioner/contractor has executed all the works and they have admitted that this office has submitted VIII & final bill to a tune of Rs.37,64,000/- to the Pay & Accounts Officer, Lingamguntla vide token No.2180 dated 24.06.2014 for arranging payment.

¶17

The Pay & Accounts Officer, Lingamguntla has rejected the bill duly raising an objection that the value of work done is greater than the Administrative Sanction and requested this office to obtain revised administrative sanction vide Lr.No.APAO/W&P/NRT/Sn.III/R&B/14-15/44, dated 21.07.2014. The Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Roads has issued permission to approve working estimate at circle level with total expenditure excluding T.P. & price adjustment not exceeding Administrative Sanction amount.

¶18

Accordingly, the Superintending Engineer (R&B) Circle, Guntur has approved the second working estimate duly limiting to Administrative Sanction amount of Rs.3,60,00,000/- including

¶19

¶20

T.P. & Price adjustment. The Superintending Engineer (R&B) Circle, Guntur was addressed to obtain the necessary Revised Administrative Sanction from the Government and it is in process. Soon after receipt of the same, the bill will be processed.

¶21

In view of the said instructions, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to pay the bills to the petitioner as soon as they obtained the revised administrative sanction from the Government and the said process shall be completed preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶22

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶24

SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶25

10.04.2023 Note:- Issue C.C. by 20.04.2023 B/o kbs

¶26

¶27

232

¶28

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶29

(Disposed of)

¶30

Writ Petition No.6815 of 2023

¶31

Date: 10.04.2023

¶32

kbs

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Nagabhushanam and Co., 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

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