Dismissed

V. Janardhana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Feb 2024WP/8487/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor sought release of withheld final bill amounts under irrigation agreements. Respondents paid the principal during proceedings; contempt proceedings closed. Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, granting liberty to claim interest or differential amounts through fresh legal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to claim interest/differential amounts via fresh/separate legal proceedings.

V. Janardhana, Vs The State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 8487 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

H Business, R/o. H,No.4-64-1, Cherlokothur Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its. Special Chief Secretary, Department of Irrigation and Water Resources Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

Pilrif Engineer, Water resources Department, Irrigation Circle, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶14

^ Resources Department, Minor Irrrigation Works Division, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ^

¶15

The Deputy Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Works Sub- Division Dhone, Kurnool District. ’

¶16

The Pay and Accounts Officer, Works and Accounts D No 29-2-52 SaDisthS®"’ Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

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 not 'releasing the final bill amount of Rs.8,38,155/-, Rs. 8,39,510/-and Rs. 8,65,134/to the petitioner including interest for the works done i n pursuance of Agreement with the 5*^ respondent Vide Agreement No. 1981/2018-19 dated 03.12.2018, Agreement No. 1982/2018-19 dated 03.12.2018 and Agreement No. 1983/2018-19 dated 03.12.2018, as being illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and Unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to pay undisputed final bill amount of Rs.8,38,155/-, Rs. 8,39,510/-and Rs. 8,65,134/- to the petitioner including interest for the works done in pursuance of Agreement with the 5th respondent Vide Agreement No. 1981/2018-19 dated 03.12.2018, Agreement No. 1982/2018-19 dated 03.12.2018 and Agreement No. 1983/2018-19 dated 03.12.2018.

¶21

1AJJ0M0F2^2

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release undisputed final bill amount of direct the respondents to pay undisputed final bill amount of Rs.8,38,155/, Rs. 8,39,510/-and Rs. 8,65,134/- to the petitioner including interest for the works done in pursuance of Agreement with the 5th respondent Vide Agreement No. 1981/2018-19 dated 03.12.2018, Agreement No. 1982/201819 dated 03.12.2018 and Agreement No. 1983/2018-19 dated 03.12.2018 pending disposal of Writ Petition in the interest of justice.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M. SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 : GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 7 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER

■» (♦ -r

( (

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶28

WRIT PETITON No.8487 of 2022

¶29

ORDER;

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶31

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, on oral instructions submitted that respondent authorities paid the total due amount claimed by the petitioner.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner^submits that the respondents paid the principal amount, but not paid the interest as claimed by the petitioner and the contempt proceedings initiated in C.C.No.3332 of 2022 were also closed.

¶33

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel^forthe petitioner and learned Government Pleader that the principal amount was already paid as claimed by the petitioner, contempt proceedings were closed and also the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the further claim of interest for delayed

¶34

payment can be agitated by way of initiation of separate/fresh legal proceedings is also valid and sustainable.

¶35

In view of the facts and circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the present Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, granting liberty to the petitioner to claim differential amount/withheld amount or interest amount, if any, by way of initiation of fresh/separate legal proceedings in accordance with law.

¶36

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶37

stand closed.

¶38

//TRUE COPY// SDI- B.PRASAD RAO assistant registrar An^ SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

One CC to Sri M. Siva Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

^ Command Area Development, High

¶42

Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] ^

¶43

^ CP for Finances Planning, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶44

Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGHCOURT r, -.

DATED:15/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.8487 of 2022

o<br>* 13 DEC 2024 ml
CO./
. Curreni Seciion .

¶52

DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

V. Janardhana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Janardhana, 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

Yeleswararam Ramachandra Naidu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Amanulla Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gonuguntla Jaya Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E Prakash Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch Anka Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

U Ramanjaneyulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh