Disposed

Gudupala Narasimha, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Feb 2024WP/460/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor sought mandamus for payment withheld for three years after completing ayacut road improvement works under the Neeru-Chettu programme. The court directed respondents to pay the bill under Agreement No.977/2018-19 with 6% per annum interest within six weeks, permitting the petitioner to pursue any differential claim elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Payment of bill amount under Agreement No.977/2018-19 dated 02.05.2018 with 6% per annum interest within six weeks.

Gudupala Narasimha, Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

THE

¶3

TUESD/W^HLE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ^
O
PRESENT 'V’O
■X
rrt,
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMr^[9

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 460 OF 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

Gudupala Narasimha, S/o. Narasimhudu, Aged 29 Years, Occ: Contractor, R/o. Thammadapalle Village, Banaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool^District.

¶7

...PETITIONER AND

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Finance and Planning, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶10

The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool, 5. The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Water Resources Department, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶11

The Executive Engineer, M.l. Works Division, Water Resources Department, Nandyal, Kurnool 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, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in non-payment of amounts due for the last three years even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner after the successful completion of the execution of work i.e., “Improvements of Ayacut Road from Telugu Peta to Kothapeta rasta near Amadala Village in Koilakuntia Mandal of Kurnool District” under “Neeru-Chettu” programme duly approved by the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to consider the payment of amounts due to the petitioner in respect of execution of said work forthwith.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 pay the amounts payable to the petitioner for the

¶16

work i.e., Improvements of Ayacut Road from Telugu Peta to Kothapeta rasta near Amadala Village in Koilakuntia Mandal of Kurnool District" executed by him under "Neeru-Chettu" programme immediately, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FINANCE AND^PLANNING

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6: GP FOR IRRIGATION

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.460 Of 2022

¶23

ORDER:-

¶24

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in non-payment of amount due for the last three years even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner after successful completion of the execution of works i.e., Improvements of Ayacut Road from Telugu Peta to Kothapeta rasta near Amadala Village in Koilakuntla Mandal of Kurnool District under Agreement No.977/2018-19 dated 02.05.2018 for “NeeruChettu” programme duly approved by the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction.

¶25

The petitioner’s case is that, the petitioner has undertaken certain repair work in Kurnool District and successfully completed those works. On completion of the agreed work, the respondent authorities did not pay the amount till date. Though the work was completed long^{backandthedefault} liability period of two years was also completed, still, the respondent authorities have not returned the amount. Hence, the writ petition is preferred seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the amount^{withinterest.}

¶26

Heard. No counter is filed by the respondents.

¶27

As can be seen, the petitioner’s case is a pitiable one. The petitioner has ) ,1 successfully completed the agreed work to the satisfaction^{oftheauthorities.} However, the bill amount was withheld and not returned, most importantly. without any reason.

¶28

¶29

Though this Court passed an interim order on 30.03.2022, directing the respondents to pay the approved and final bill amount due to the petitioner, within a period of six (06) weeks, the same was not paid. It is imperative for public authorities to recognize their responsibility and promptly fulfil contractual obligations by paying the agreed-upon amounts to contractors. Failing to do so not only jeopardizes future contractor engagement but also undermines the quality of work delivered. In the present case, the withholding of the bill amount lacks justification. Therefore, it is only fair for the petitioner to receive the payment owed to them, along with interest.

¶30

Hence, writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to pay the bill amount covered under Agreement No.977/2018-19, dated 02.05.2018 to the petitioner along with the interest @ 6% per annum, in view of the judgment of the HonlDle Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021 and batch dated 12.10.2023, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

¶32

It would also be open to the petitioner to agitate his claim^ differential amount/higher- rate of interest, if anjr payable by the respondents, in an appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

Sd/- G HELANAIDU ASSISTANT R^ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIoVoFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Finance and Planning, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶35

The Principal Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶36

The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool, 5. The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Water Resources Department, Kurnool, KurnoolDistrict.

¶37

The Executive Engineer, M.I.Works Division, Water Resources Department, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

¶38

One CC to M/s. Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

Two CC’s to GP for Finance and Planning, High Court^ofA.P.at

¶40

Amaravati[OUT]

¶41

Two CC’s to GP for Irrigation, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 10.Three CD Copis.

ssb Madhu

I i

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/02/2024

}

ORDER

WP.No.460 of 2022

ablsii

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Gudupala Narasimha, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudupala Narasimha, 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

K Purushottam Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kota Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Bhaskar Rao Vs the State of Ap

Singamsetty.Venkateswararao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Balireddy Surendra Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Geethanjali Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh