Disposed

Naravadi Gayatri, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Feb 2024WP/487/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor completed irrigation works under Neeru-Chettu programme; authorities withheld finalized bill of Rs.51,20,850/-. Court held withholding unjustified and directed payment with 6% interest within six weeks, leaving differential/higher interest claims open.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs.51,20,850/- with interest @ 6% per annum within six weeks; liberty to agitate differential/higher interest in appropriate forum.

Naravadi Gayatri, Vs The State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 487 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Naravadi Gayatri, W/o. Siva Rami Reddy, Aged 51 Years, Occ Janmabhoomi Mavoori Committee member, Rio. NGO Colony, Banaganapalli Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Vijayawada, Krishna Distript.

¶13

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool,

¶14

The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle,^{WaterResources} Department, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶15

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

...Respondents

PA,' P'

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 bi payable to the petitioner after the successful completion of the execution of different irrigation works in near Pasupala, Kypa and Rallakotturu Villages of Banaganapalli Mandal in 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.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

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 be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the amounts payable to the petitioner for different irrigation works in near Pasupala, Kypa & Rallakotturu Villages of Banaganapalli Mandal in Kurnool District executed by her under "Neeru-Chettu" programme immediately, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶23

Counsel for the RespondentsNos.1: GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶24

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

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.487 of 2022

¶30

QRDER:-

¶31

Thq petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to declare the^{actionoftherespondents} in withholding and not releasing an amount of Rs.51,20,850/-^{evenafterexecutionof} work, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles^{ofNaturalJusticeandfora} consequential direction.

¶32

The petitioner's case is that, the petitioner has undertaken^{certainrepairworks} in Guntur District and successfully completed those^{works.Thenetamountpayableto} the petitioner was concluded at Rs.51,20,850/-. On^{completionof theagreedworks,the} respondent authorities did not pay the amount till^{date.Thoughtheworkswere} completed long back and the default liability period^{of two years wasalsocompleted,} still, the respondent authorities have not returned^{theamountHence,thewritpetition} is preferred seeking a direction to the respondents^{topay theamountwithinterest}

¶33

Heard. No counter is filed by the respondents.

¶34

¶35

As can be seen, the petitioner’s case is a pitiable^{one.Thepetitionerhas} successfully completed the agreed works to the satisfaction of the authorities. However, the bill amount was withheld and not returned,^{mostimportantly,without} any reason.

¶36

Though this Court passed an interim order on 28.03.2022,^directingthe respondents to pay the finalized and approved bill^{amountaspertheM-Bookand}

¶37

¶38

Quality Control Certificate 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 justiflcation. Therefore, it is only fair for the petitioner to receive the payment owed to them, along with interest.

¶39

Hence, writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to pay bill amount of Rs.51,20,850/- to the petitioner along with the interest @ 6»/„ per annum, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021 and batch dated 12,10.2023, within a period of six C06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

To,

¶43

SD/- K. TATA RAO //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR cA^ ^seStion officer

¶44

The Principal Secretary .State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of

¶45

Finance and Planning, Secretariat District. Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur

¶46

¶47

The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶48

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool

¶49

The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Water^Resources Department, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶50

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

¶51

One CC to SRI. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶53

Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶54

Three Cp Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/02/2024

ORDER WP.No.487 of 2022

¶59

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Naravadi Gayatri, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naravadi Gayatri, 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

Manikonda Ramakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rapuru Sundara Rami Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunduru Rama Chandra Reddy, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Thota Siva Narayana Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Gongadi Pratap Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dudekula Khasim, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh