Allowed

S Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Apr 2024WP/6159/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed for the release of withheld amounts and Earnest Money Deposit totaling Rs.3,91,135/- retained by department officials for completed work contracts in Nandyal District. The court found no justification for the delay post defect liability period and directed payment.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to release the Withheld amount and Earnest Money Deposit totaling Rs.3,91,135/- within 04 weeks.

S Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 6159 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

S. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged about 58 years. Agriculturist and Contractor, R/o. Allagadda Town and Mandal, Nandyal District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat Buildings, Nelapadu Village, Amaravati,Guntur District.

¶13

The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (Ml), Namburi Gopal Rao Street, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶14

The Superintendent Engineer, Water Resources Department (Ml), Kurnpol, Kurnool District.

¶15

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

¶16

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings, Nelapadu Village, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶17

The Pay and Accounts Officer,Works and Accounts, Tekke, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High

¶20

/ /

¶21

Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus^{bydeclaringtheaction} of respondents in not taking steps to pay EMD amount^{of2.5percentand} Withheld Amount (W.H.A.) in respect of Agreement Nos. 7.5 percent 1293/18-19, for Rs.98,020/-, 1291/18-19 for Rs.98,130/-, 1290/18-19 for totaling an amount of Rs.97,994/and 1287/18-19 for Rs.96,991/Rs.3,91,135/- as arbitrary, illegal and in violation^{ofArticle19(1)(g)ofthe} Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents^toforthwith amount of Rs.3,91,135/- which were retained by the^respondents. pay an lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support^{ofthewritpetition,the} High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents^{topayEMDamount} of 2.5% and 7.5% Withheld Amount (W.H.A.) in respect^{of AgreementNos.} 1291/18-19 1290/18-19 1287/18-19 for 1293/18-19 for Rs.98,020/-, Rs.98,130/-,for for Rs.97,994/- and Rs.96,991/-, totaling an amount of Rs.3,91,135/-, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. C. PRAKASH REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1,2,3,4: GP FOR IRRIGATION^AND CAD

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents Nos,5,6: GP FOR FINANCE^AND PLANNING

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶28

AT AMARAVATI

¶29

[3329]

¶30

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶31

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL

¶32

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO; 6159/2024

¶36

Between:

¶37

S Chandra Sekhar Reddy

¶38

• • •PETITIONER

¶39

AND

¶40

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶41

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶43

C PRAKASH REDDY

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶45

l.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP)

¶46

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP)

¶47

The Court made the following:

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

of the 1. The present petition is filed aggrieved by the action respondent in not releasing the refund of 7.5% of Withheld^amountand 2.5% of Earnest Money Deposit(EMD) amounts totaling^toanamountof Rs.3,91,135/-.

¶50

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has entered into various agreements with the respondents^{fortheworksin} Kumool District and he completed the work as per the agreements. Execution of work was entered into measurement book prepared by the respondent authorities without noticing any defects.^Theamount for execution of work was paid to the petitioner, but the earnest money deposit and withheld amount was not released even after completion of defect liability period. The petitioner has approached the respondents several times for reimbursement of the earnest money deposit and withheld amount. As the respondents have failed to release the earnest money deposit and withheld amount, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for release of earnest money deposit and withheld amount.

¶52

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the respondents are ready to pay the amounts due to the petitioner.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned^counsel for the respondents.

¶54

Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case,^submissions made by both learned counsel and on perusing the material placed on record, as there is no justification in withholding the earnest money deposit and withheld amount, even after completion of defect hability period and c©hipletion of the work allotted by the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to djrexLt__the_ j::esnondents to release the

¶55

earnest money deposit and withheld amount due to the petitioner for the last several months.

¶56

In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release the Withheld amount and Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) amounts totaling to an amount of Rs.3,91,135/- to the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

CongeqUehtiy, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending^inthisWrit

¶58

'"f V Petit! oh;hh all stand -elcvsecl

¶59

Sd/- B. CHITTl JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR j //TRUE COPY// SECTIOr^F^ER

¶60

To,

¶61

1.. The Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department,^{StateofAndhra} Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Nelapadu Village, Amaravati,Gunt ur District.

¶62

The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (Ml),^NamburiGopal Rao Street, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶63

The Superintendent Engineer, Water Resources Department^(Ml), Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶64

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

¶65

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, State^{of AndhraPradesh,} Secretariat Buildings, Nelapadu Village, Amaravati,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶66

The Pay and Accounts Officer,Works and Accounts,^{Tekke,Nandyal,} Kurnool District.

¶67

1. One pc to 'SRI. C. PRAKASH REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶68

Two CCS to GP FOR IRRIGATION AND CAD, High Court^ofAndhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶69

Two CCS to GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶70

lO.ThreeC.D.Copies

nm.

.. ql

IEI3/XJI

HIGH COURT DATED:03/04/2024

¶75

ORDER

¶76

WP.No.6159 of 2024

¶77

ANdiSg
nS 0 2 JUL 202^
A-

¶78

disposing of the wp WITHOUT COSTS

S Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Chandra Sekhar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veerla Veera Kalidasu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kilarapu Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Ap

Katamgari Venkateswarlu, Spsr Nellore Dist and 29 Others Vs Dist Collector, Spsr Nellore and 7 Others

K Siva Sankar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nutheti Ramanaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Athipalli Sivaprasad Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh