Disposed

M/S. Rhino Engineers Private Limited v. the State of Andha Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Jan 2024WP/27738/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a declaration that the respondents' withholding of auditor fees for 2018-19 and 2019-20 was illegal and arbitrary, directing payment after statutory deductions within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to arrange payment of the due amount, subject to statutory deductions, within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

M/S. Rhino Engineers Private Limited… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27738 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/S. Rhino Engineers Private Limited, 7 and 8, Third Floor, Jyothi Plaza, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Ahemdabad - 380 015, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Kambhampati Eeswar, S/o Prabhakara Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occ; Business, H.No. 19-62/A, Rama Complex, Opp MPDO Office, Ramayanpet, Medak, Telangana - 502101.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary,^Tourismand Youth Affairs, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur,^Amaravathi.

¶12

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

¶13

The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Authority, Rep by its^{ChiefExecutive} Officer, 5^^ Floor, Stalin Corporation Tower, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Krishna 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 be 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 with-holding the amount of Rs.77,62,500/ - (Rupees Seventy Seven Lakhs Sixty two thousand and five hundred Only) for the year 2018-19 and Rs. 17,25,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs and Twenty five thousand only) for the year 2019-20 from the respondents^No.1to3for

¶16

the services provided by the petitioner i.e. 3rd party oversight auditors for

¶17

‘ 24 Mega Events and festival executed by the AP Tourism Authority, is ' illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19,^and21 of the constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to pay^{thetotalamountof} Rs.94,87,500/-(Rupees Ninety four Lakhs Eighty seven^{thousandandfive} hundred Only) with cumilative interest.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

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 3 Respondents to release^{thetotalamountof} Rs.94,87,500/-(Rupees Ninety four Lakhs Eighty seven^{thousandandfive} hundred Only) into the petitioner account, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DASARI S. V. V. S. V. PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP FOR TOURISM Counsel for the Respondent No.2:GP FOR FINANCE AND^PANNING The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.27738 OF 2023

¶23

Dt.05.01.2024

¶24

Between

¶25

M/s. Rhino Engineers Private Limited

¶26

... Petitioner

¶27

and

¶28

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tourism and Youth Affairs Department, and others

¶29

... Respondents

¶30

Counsel for petitioner : Mr.Dasari.S.V.V.S.V.Prasad Counsel for respondents: The G.P. for Tourism The G.P. for Finance and Planning

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Tourism and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance 86 Planning appearing for the respective respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission.

¶33

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in withholding the amount of Rs.77,62,500/-(Rupees Seventy seven lakhs sixty two^thousand and five hundred only) for the year 2018-T9 and Rs. 17,25,000/(Rupees Seventeen lakhs and twenty five thousand only)^forthe year 2019-’20 from the respondents Nos.l to 3 for the^services

¶34

¶35

provided by the petitioner i.e., 3rd party oversight^auditorsfor 24 Mega Events and festival executed by the AP Tourism Authority as illegal, arbitraiy etc., and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the said total amount (Rs.94,87,500/-) along with cumulative interest and to pass such other orders.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that^the petitioner completed the works in question to the satisfaction^of the respondent authorities in all respects. He submits that despite the same, bills to which the petitioner is^{lawfullyentitled} were not released resulting in serious prejudice and irreparable loss and hence the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶37

At the time of considering the matter, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Tourism placed a copy^ofthe written instructions dated 04.01.2024 received from^the Chief Executive Officer, A.P. Tourism Authority, Autonagar, Vijayawada for perusal of this Court, from a reading^ofwhich,it would appear that there is no dispute with regard to^theamount claimed by the petitioner.

¶38

Therefore, in view of the undisputed position with^regard to the execution of the works by the petitioner and^non-payment

¶39

¶40

of bill in respect of the same, this Court is of the^opinionthat the respondents’ action in not releasing payment is^unjust,not tenable, however inclined to grant some time to the^respondents to make the payment.

¶41

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to arrange to make payment^ofthe amount, which is due and payable to the petitioner,^inrespectof the work executed, after effecting the statutory deductions, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period^ofthree(3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the petitioner may raise claim^with regard to the cumulative interest component before^appropriate Forum, if it is so advised. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To.

The Principal Secretary, Tourism and Youth Affairs,^{StateofAndhra} Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur,^Amaravathi.

¶47

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

¶48

The Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh Tourism Authority, 5th Floor, Stalin Corporation Tower, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶49

/’

¶50

One CC to Sri Dasari S. V. V. S. V.Prasad, Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

Two CCs to GP for Tourism, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶52

Two CC’s to GP for Finance and Planning, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT]

¶53

Three CD Copies.

Ssb

MET

Time Limit

HIGH COURT

I^ATED: 05/01/2024

/ /

ORDER

WP.No.27738 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

M/S. Rhino Engineers Private Limited v. the State of Andha Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Rhino Engineers Private Limited v. the State of Andha 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

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

K. Bhagyamma Vs P. Vali Basha

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

Indhukuri Murali Krishnam Raju Vs the State of Ap

M/s. Rhino Engineers Private Limited Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shree Karthik Agro Industries Vs the Andhra Pradesh State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited