Disposed

Dudekula Khasim, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Feb 2024WP/494/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor completed two Neeru-Chettu irrigation works but the respondents withheld the finalized bill amount of Rs.16,37,128/- without reason, despite an interim direction to pay. The Court held the withholding unjustified, directed payment with interest at 6% per annum within six weeks, and closed miscellaneous applications.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs.16,37,128/- with interest at 6% per annum within six weeks; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

Dudekula Khasim, 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: 494 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dudekula Khasim, S/o. Chinna Dastagiri, Aged 33 Years, Occ: Janmabhoomi Mavoori Committee member, R/o. Venkatapuram Village, Banaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal^{SecretarytoGovernment,} Department of Finance and Planning, Secretariat. Velagapudi,^Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal^{SecretarytoGovernment,} Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi,^{Amaravathi,Guntur} District.

¶12

The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department,^{Vijayawada,KrishnaDistrict.} 4. The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool,

¶13

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

¶14

The Executive Engineer, M.I.Works Division, Water^{ResourcesDepartment,} Nandyal, Kurnool District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthatinthe} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents^{innon-payment} of amounts due for the last three years even after^{finalizingthebills,payableto} the petitioner after the successful completion of the^execution of 2 irrigation works i.e., Improvements to ayacut road towards Nandavarani near Sankalapuram Village and Desilting of Venkatapuram vanka near Rama Krishnapuram Village in Banaganapalli Mandal of Kurnool^{DistrictunderNeeru-}

¶17

Chettu programme duly approved by the respondents,^{asillegal,arbitrary,unjust,} unreasonable and unconstitutional and consequently^{directtherespondentsto} consider the payment of amounts due to the petitioner^{inrespectofexecutionof} said work forthwith.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition,^{theHighCourtmaybepleasedto} direct the respondents to petitioner for 2 irrigation^{worksi.e.,"Improvementstoa} near Sankalapuram Village and Desilting of VenI Krishnapuram Village in Banaganapalli Mandal of Kurnool District, executed^{byhimunder"Neeru-Chettu"} programme immediately, pending disposal of the main^{writpetition.}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FINANCE AND^PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : GP FOR IRRIGATION^ANDCOMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.494 of 2022

¶25

ORDER:-

¶26

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in withholding and not releasing an amount of Rs.16,37,128/-^{evenafterexecutionof} work, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles^{ofNaturalJusticeandfor} a consequential direction.

¶27

The petitioner’s case is that, the petitioner has undertaken certain repair works in Guntur District and successfully completed those works. The net amount payable to the petitioner was concluded at Rs.16,37,128/-. On completion of the agreed works, the respondent authorities did not pay the amount till date. Though the works were completed long back and the default liability period of two years was also completed, still, the respondent authorities have not returned^{theamount.Hence,thewritpetition} is preferred seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the amount with interest.

¶28

¶29

Heard. No counter is filed by the respondents.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

Quality Control Certificate to the petitioner, within^{aperiodofsix(06]weeks,thesame} was not paid. It is imperative for public authorities to^{recognizetheirresponsibility} and promptly fulfil contractual obligations by paying^{theagreed-uponamountsto} contractors. Failing to do so not^on ly jeopardizes future contractor engagement but also undermines the quality of work delivered. In the^{presentcase,thewithholdingof} the bill amount lacks justification. Therefore, it^{isonly fairforthe petitionertoreceive} the payment owed to them, along with interest.

¶34

Hence, writ petition is disposed of, directing the^{respondentauthoritiestopay} bill amount of Rs.16,37,128/- to the petitioner along^{withtheinterest@6%per} annum. in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench^{ofthisCourtinWrit} of 2021 and batch dated 12.10.2023, within a period^{ofsix(06]weeks} Appeal No.724 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

It would also be open to the petitioner to agitate his claim differential of interest, if any payable by the respondents, in^{anappropriate} amount/higher rate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if^{any,shallstandclosed.}

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

SD/- K. TATA RAO GISTRAR deputy SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To,

¶39

The Principal Secretary,State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Finance and Planning, Secretariat. Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

The District Collector, , Kurnool District at Kurnool,

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

One CC to SRI. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/02/2024

ORDER WP.No.494 of 2022

¶53

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Dudekula Khasim, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dudekula Khasim, 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

Naravadi Gayatri, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gongadi Pratap Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh