Disposed

U Ramanjaneyulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Feb 2024WP/9056/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor sought payment of Rs.36,95,335/- for completed check dam works withheld by authorities without reason despite finalised bills and expiry of the defect liability period. The court held the withholding unjustified and directed payment with interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs.36,95,335/- with 6% per annum interest within six weeks; liberty to agitate differential/higher interest claims; no costs.

U Ramanjaneyulu Vs The State of Andhra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

h -ar-

¶2

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

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9056 OF 2022

¶7

¶8

Between:

¶9

U Ramanjaneyulu, S^o U. Naganna, H.No 1-112, Kambadahal (V) C.Belagal (M), Kurnool District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool.

¶15

The Executive Engineer, M.l (W). Division, Kurnool

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in non-payment of amount of Rs. 36,95,335/-(Rupees thirty six lakhs ninety five thousand three hundred and thirty five only) due for the last three years even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner after the successful completion of the execution of seven works i.e.. Construction of

¶18

check dam 2 across Lira vanka near Ponakaladinne (V). Nandavaram(M), Kurnool District Vide-1988/2018-2019 dated 3.12-2018. Construction of check dam 2 across vanka near Ponakaladinne (V), Nandavaram (M), Kurnool District, Construction of check dam 1 across Olippi Reddy near Ponakaladinne(V), Nandavaram(M), Kurnool District, Construction of check dam 1 across Kondamma vanka near Ponakaladinne(V), Nandavaram(M), Kurnool District. Vide-1986/2018-2019 dated 03-12-2018 Construction of check dam 1 Ura vanaka near Ponakaladinna (V), Yemmiganur (M), Kurnool District. Vide-1987/2018-2019 dated 03-12-2018. respectively for 'NeeruChettu' programme duly approved by the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the payment of amounts of Rs. 36,95,335/-(Rupees thirty six lakhs ninety five thousand^three hundred and thirty five only) due to the petitioner in respect^ofexecution of said works executed by the Petitioner.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppprt of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents in non-payment of amount of Rs. 36,95,335/- (Rupees thirty six lakhs ninety five thousand three hundred and thirty five only) due for the last three years even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner after the successful completion of the execution of seven works i.e.. Construction of check dam 2 across Ura vanka near Ponakaladinne (V), Nandavaram(M), Kurnool^{DistrictVide-} 1988/2018-2019 dated 3-12-2018. Construction of check dam 2 across vanka near Ponakaladinne (V) Nandavaram (M), Kurnool District, Construction of check darn 1 across Olippi Reddy near Ponakaladinnt Nandavaram(M), Kurnool District, Construction of check dam 1 across Kondamma vanka near Ponakaladinne(V), Nandavaram(M), Kurnool

¶21

¶22

<'y

¶23

District. Vide-1986/2018-2019 dated 03-12-2018 Construction of check dam 1 Ura vanaka near Ponakaladinna (V), Yemmiganur (M),^Kurnool District. Vide-1987/2018-2019 dated 03-12-2018. respectively for "Neeru-Chettu tf programme duly approved by the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the payment of amounts of Rs. 36,95,335/-(Rupees thirty six lakhs ninety five^{thousandthreehundred} and thirty five only) due to the petitioner in respect^ofexecution of said works executed by the Petitioner, pending, disposal of the main writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. VARUN BYREDDY

¶25

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

¶26

•i

¶27

THIS HOW^'EILE SRII JUSTICE VEIiir]EL,SkTESWARLU MIMMAGADDA li^rRIT ]F‘ETITIO:W No. 9€»56 of 2022

¶28

OlfilDEIilL:

¶29

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

¶30

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to declare the aotion ol the respondents in withholding and not releasing^an amount of Rs.36,95,335/- even after execution of work, as illegal, arbiti-'aiy mid violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction.

¶31

The petiti.onerl:j case is that, the petitioner has undertalLen certain repair works in Kurnool District and successfully completed those works. The net amount payable to the petitioner vras concluded at Rs.36,95,335/-. On completion o:f the agreed works, the respondent authorities did not pay the amount till date.. Though, the wcirks; were completed long back and the default liability period of two years was also completed, s':i.ll, i;he resfioncLent authorities .Inave not ireturned the amount. H(5nce, the writ petition is preferred seeking a direction^tothe respondent! to pay the amount with interest.

¶32

¶33

¶34

Heard. No counter is filed by the res;pondents

¶35

As can be seen, the petition(ir's case is a pitiiabie one.^T]:.e petitioner has succevssfully completed the aigreed works to^tt.e satisfaction of the authorit;ies, However, the biU amount W;=lS withheld and not returned, most impoitaiitly, without ar.y reason.

¶36

Though this. Court i:)assed .an. ihterm;L order on 12.04.2022, directing the respondents to pay the finalized and approved bill amount as per the M-Book and Qua.lity Control Certificate to the petitioner, within, a pe:riod of sk {i:)6), the sai].-.e was not paid. It is i.mperative for jmblic a.uthorities to recognise their responsibility and promptly fulfil c:ontr.actUc;il obligation:is. by paying the agreed-upon an.iounts to contractors. Failing to do so not only jeopardizes future cont;r.actor engagement^but also undermines the quality of work delh'ered. In the present case, the withholding of the bill am.ount lacks justificatio]!. Therefore, it is only fair for the petitione;].- to rec^sive the psqment owed to them, along with interest.

¶37

Hence, writ petition is disposed of, clirecting t]:i.e respondent authorities to pay bill amount of Rs.36,95,335/to the pethioner along with the interest @ 6% per- annum, m. view

.2.

I I a it'V,

?'!

/■ t s

oi the judgmisnt of tliie; Honh;'.e Division Ben.ch^{ofthisCourtin} Vv^iit Appeal No.724 of 2021 and batch dated 12.10.2023,^within a period of s:k (06) weeks from the date of receipt^ofacopyof this order.

¶45

It would also. be open to the pistitioner to agitate^hisclaim differential amount/higher rat.e of interest, if any payable^bythe respondents, in an aippropriate forrrm. There shall^benoorder 8L='. to costs.

¶46

Consequently, miscella:-.aeous petitions, if any, pending

¶47

slriall stand closed.

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

Sd/- K.J.RAJABABU assistant registrar

¶50

tion officer

¶51

To,

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool.

¶55

The Executive Engineer, M.l (W). Division. Kurnool

¶56

¶57

One CC to SRI. VARUN BYREDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

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

¶59

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra^{Pradesh.[OUT]}

¶60

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

¶61

Three CD Copies

csb

<7*

HIGH COURT

csb

DATED:15/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.9056 of 2022

Uo 0 3 AUG 202A m}!
^ Current Section ^

¶70

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

U Ramanjaneyulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U Ramanjaneyulu 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

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

V. Janardhana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh