Disposed

Battula Ramanamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Feb 2024WP/491/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor completed irrigation repair works in Banaganapalli and Sanjamala Mandals under the 'Neeru-Chettu' programme, but bill amounts were withheld without reason despite an interim payment order. The Court directed respondents to pay with 6% interest within six weeks, reserving liberty to claim differential amounts or higher interest elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay withheld bill amounts with 6% per annum interest within six weeks; liberty to agitate differential amount/higher rate of interest before appropriate forum; no costs.

Battula Ramanamma Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 491 OF 9n?9

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sori^CormltTee'membef Rm"M Janmabhoomi Kurnool District ' Meerapauram Village, BanaganapaIN Mandal,

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

, Amaravathi,

¶12

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

¶13

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool,

¶14

Kurnool, Kurnool District. Irrigation Circle, Water Resources Department,

¶15

Engineer, M.I.Works Division

¶16

Nandyal, Kurnool District. Water Resources Department,

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

WRIT OF MANDAMUS decrarino thT P one in the nature^of programme duly approved by the .. pa=i;T.-.=;r.=r.-:“; sar “

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 direct the respondents to pay the amounts payable to the petitioner for different irrigation works in Banaganapalli and Sanjamala Mandal in Kurnool District executed by her under "Neeru-Chettu" programme immediately, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M/S. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶22

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

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 6 : GP FOR IRRIGATION & PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.491 Of 2022

¶27

ORDER; -

¶28

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in withholding and not releasing an^{amountcovered} under the execution of different irrigation works in Banaganapalli 8& Sanjamala Mandal in Kurnool District, even after execution of works, as illegal, arbitraiy and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction.

¶29

The petitioner’s case is that, the petitioner has undertaken certain repair works in Kurnool District and successfully completed those works. On completion of the agreed works, the respondent authorities did not pay the amount till date. Though^theworks were completed long back and the default liability period of two years was also completed, still, the respondent authorities have^{notreturnedthe} amount. Hence, the writ petition is preferred seeking^adirectionto the respondents to pay the amount with interest.

¶30

¶31

Heard. No counter is filed by the respondents.

¶32

As can be seen, the petitioner’s case is a pitiable one. The petitioner has successfully, completed the agreed works to the

¶33

¶34

satisfaction of the authorities. However, the bill^{amountwaswithheld} and not returned, most importantly, without any reason.

¶35

Though this Court passed an interim order on 30.03.2022, directing the respondents to pay the finalized and approved bill amount as per the M-Book and 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 justification. Therefore, it is only fair for the petitioner to receive the payment owed to them, along with interest.

¶36

Hence, writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to pay the amount covered under the execution of different irrigation works in Banaganapalli 8& Sanjamala^Mandalin Kurnool District to the petitioner along with the interest @ 6% per annum, in view of the judgment of the Honhle Division^Benchofthis Court in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021 and batch dated^12.10.2023,

¶37

¶38

/ /

¶39

within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶40

this order.

¶41

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^noorderasto

¶42

costs.

¶43

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶44

stand closed.

¶45

Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary to Government, Department^{ofFinanceandPlanning,} State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶50

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

¶51

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.

¶52

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

¶53

One CC to M/S. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for FINANCE PLANNING, High Court of^{AndhraPradesh.} [OUT]

¶54

Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV, High^{CourtofAndhra} Pradesh. [OUT]

¶55

Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.491 of 2022

•TP S’^;2_;iy

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Battula Ramanamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Battula Ramanamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thota Siva Narayana Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Naravadi Gayatri, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gongadi Pratap Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vennapusa Reddygari Sreenivasa Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sangu Rameswara Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dudekula Bala Kullayi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh