Allowed

Gongadi Pratap Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Feb 2024WP/533/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the State authorities to release withheld payments for completed desilting works under the Neeru-Chettu programme, ruling that such withholding without reason violates natural justice and contractual obligations. The court ordered payment with interest.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs.17,28,558/- along with interest @ 6% per annum within six weeks.

Gongadi Pratap Reddy, Vs The State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA-^^^^^

¶2

°ii0
X

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 533 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gongadi Pratap Reddy, S/o. Venkateswara Reddy, Aged 32 Years, Occ Contractor, R/o. Bondaladinne Village and Mandal, Ananthapur^District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool,

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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

¶19

' nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in /SP hon-payment of amounts due for the last three years^{evenafterfinalizing} the bills, payable to the petitioner after the successfui completion of the execution of 2 works i.e., "Desilting and removal of heaps from Km 0.00 to 0.250 Km in Kundu vagu near Gulladurthi Village in^{KokilakuntiaMandal} and Desilting and removal of heaps from Km 0.550 to^{0.750KminKundu} vagu near Gulladurthi Village in Kokilakuntia Mandal^ofKurnool 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^{workforthwithandto} pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶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 for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the amounts payable to the petitioner for the 2 works i.e., "Desilting and removal of heaps from Km 0.00 to 0.250 Km in Kundu vagu near Gulladurthi Village in Kokilakuntia Mandal and Desilting and removal of heaps from Km 0.550 to 0.750 Km in Kundu vagu near Gulladurthi Village in Kokilakuntia Mandal of Kurnool District" executed by him under "NeeruChettu" programme immediately, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 2,3,5 & 6: GP FOR IRRIGATION The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

0 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.533 Of 2022

¶26

ORDER:-

¶27

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in withholding and not releasing an amount of Rs.17,28,558/-^{evenafterexecutionof} work, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and for a consequential direction.

¶28

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.17,28,558/-. 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 the amount. Hence, the writ petition is preferred seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the amount with interest.

¶29

¶30

Heard. No counter is filed by the respondents.

¶31

As can be seen, the petitioner's case is a pitiable one. The petitioner has 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.

¶32

Though this Court passed an interim order on 28.03.2022ⁱⁿ I.A.No.l^of 2022, directing the respondents to pay the finalized and approved bill amount as per the

¶33

¶34

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^{withinterest.}

¶35

Hence, writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to pay bill amount of Rs.17,28,558/- 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 [06] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

SOI- K. TATA RAO //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTIO^^FFICER

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Vijayawada, Krishna

¶43

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool > 5. 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^{AndhraPradesh.} [OUT]

¶47

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] lO.Two CCs to GP for Irrigation, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶48

11.Three CD Copies.

V i >

ss 1

r. ,>
V
,5

HIGH COURT V ,• >1 -'DATED:06/02/2024

¶53

yo
i 2 5JUL 202'i S
Curreni Section

¶54

ORDER

¶55

WP.No.533 of 2022

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Gongadi Pratap Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gongadi Pratap Reddy, 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

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

Dudekula Khasim, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh