Disposed

M/s. Kisan Mart v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Jan 2024WP/24442/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-payment of admitted bills for agricultural implements. The Court found the non-payment unjust and directed respondents to pay the amount within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directive to respondents to arrange payment of the admitted amount within three months from the date of receipt of this order, after effecting statutory deductions.

M/s. Kisan Mart Vs The State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY ^ X'

¶2

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR / (x I olo
PRESENT C-A’

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 24442 OF 2022 /

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Kisan Mart, Dr.No. 30-10-20, Innespeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari, Rep.by its Proprietor, Smt. Akula Sirisha, W/o Ravi, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, H.No. 39-8-4, P & T colony. Beside Indira Heights Apartment, Rajahmundry Urban, East Godavari District.

¶6

...PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Horticulture Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi.

¶9

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

¶10

The AP State AGRO Industries Development Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, G1,G2 & 101, Prime Hill Crest, Vaddeswaram Village, Managaligiri mandal, Guntur District.

¶11

The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada.

¶12

The District Manager, AP State AGRO Industries Development Corporation Limited, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.

¶13

/ 6. The Assistant Director of Horticulture, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶16

pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents for not taking any action for processing and releasing the admitted amounts even though the petitioner firm supplied the F Hand Saw, Secature, Tree Pruner, for a tune of Rs. 1,41,46,547/-(One Crore Forty One Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Fourty Seven rupees only) With interest is illegal, arbitrary and Article 14, 19, and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents for payment of amount Rs. 1,41,46,547/-(One Crore Forty Five Lakhs Forty^{ThreeThousandOne} Hundred rupees only) forthwith with interest within stipulated time

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1 to 6 Respondents to release^{theadmittedamountof} Rs. 1,41,46,547/-(One Crore Forty One Lakhs Forty Six^Thousand Five Hundred and Fourty Seven rupees only) through a proper^{channelintothe} petitioner account, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave for filing of Counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to implead the proposed respondent as respondent No. 7 in W.P. No. 24442 of 2022 and as well as in all Interlocutory Applications

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DASARI S VV S V PRASAD

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 4 and 6: GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR FINANCE AND^PLANNING

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 and 5: SRI T S V L N SWAMY (SC FOR AGRO IDC LTD)

¶28

The Court made the following: Order

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.24442 of 2022

¶32

Between M/s.Kisan Mart, Rep. by its Proprietor, Smt.Akula Sirisha.

¶33

.... Petitioner And

¶34

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Horticulture Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,

¶35

Amaravathi & Others. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Dasari S.V.V.S.V.Prasad Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Agriculture, Sri T.S.V.L.N. Swamy, G.P. for Finance & Planning

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture for respondents 1,4 & 6, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning for respondent No.2 and Mr.T.S.V.L.N.Swamy, learned Standing Counsel for Agro Industries for respondents Nos.3 and 5. With the consent of both sides,^{theWritPetition} is disposed of, at the stage of admission. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the admitted amount of Rs.1,41,46,547/for supplying the Agriculture Implements i.e, F-Hand Saws, Secaturs, Tree Pruners as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for a consequential direction to pay the said amount along with the interest to the petitioner and to pass such^otherorders. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having received the implements(agriculture tools), the respondents have not cleared the bills, for

¶38

¶39

which the petitioner is lawfully entitled, thereby resulting in serious prejudice and

¶40

^ i irreparable loss and hence the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Counter Affidavits are filed by the respondents 3,5 and 6^ from a reading of which, it would appear that there is no dispute with regard to non-release of bill amounts to the petitioner. In Para No.8 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 5, it is inter alia stated as follows:

¶41

"8. In reply to Para Nos. 12,13 & 14, it is submitted that the 3'^ and respondents have requested the 1^ 2"'^, 4^^^ and 6^^ respondents for release of payment to the A.P.Agros as to ensure early payment to petitioner firm."

¶42

In para No.3 of the counter-affidavit filed by the 6^'' respondent, it is

¶43

averred as follows:

¶44

"3. In reply to Para No.2 of the affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that as per the contention of the petitioners on supplied horticulture equipments, it is to submit that the Commissioner of Horticulture, A.P.Guntur has sanctioned through proceedings for Rs.2,52,72,460/Wde Procs.No.MIDH-I/Rej./1230/2019-20, dated 19.03.2020 for release of total implements cost which includes an amount of Rs. 1,41,46,547/- (Rupees One crore forty one lakhs forty six thousand five hundred and forty seven only) and after getting the funds from the government the claim will be released to the petitioner."

¶45

Therefore, in view of the admitted position with regard to implements(agriculture tools) supplied by the petitioner and non-payment of Bills in respect of the same, this Court being of the opinion that the respondents' action in not releasing payment is unjust, not tenable, however inclined to grant sometime to the respondents to make the payment,

¶46

¶47

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to arrange to make payment of the amount, which is due and

¶48

payable to the petitioner, in respect of the implements(agricult ure tools) supplied, after effecting statutory deductions, as expeditiously as possible, at any

¶49

rate, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶50

this order. It is needless to state that the petitioner may claim interest, before

¶51

appropriate Forum, if she is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.

¶53

To,

¶54

SD/- K KASIRAO ACHARI //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT ^GISTRAR /^^ECTION OFFICER

¶55

The Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Horticulture Department,

¶56

Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Jefag^pudcAnfaravaThT Secretariat Buildings

¶57

and Managing Director, G1,G2 and 101, Prime Hill

¶58

Crest, Vaddeswaram Village, Managaligiri mandal, Guntur District.

¶59

The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada.

¶60

The District Manager, AP State AGRO Industries Development Corporation Limited, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.

¶61

The Assistant Director of Horticulture, Srikakulam, Srikakula

¶62

One CC to SRI DASARI S VV S V PRASAD Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

agriculture, High Court of Andhra Pradesh

¶64

Pra°desh^ finance AND PLANNING, High Court of Andhra

¶65

’^ Advocate ^Rl T S V L N SWAMY (SC FOR AGRO IDC LTD),

¶66

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.24442 of 2022

; O
0 9 AUG 2021, IT

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶74

WITHOUT COSTS

M/s. Kisan Mart v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Kisan Mart 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

G Hemanth Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G Hemanth Reddy Vs the State of Ap

G. Hemanth Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sri Madhava Reddy Rice Mill, Vs The Union of India

K. Bhagyamma Vs P. Vali Basha

M/s. Sri Chakra Cements Ltd., Vs The Employees Provident Funds