Dismissed

Satya Sai Construction v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Feb 2024WP/968/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition filed by a contractor claiming unpaid bills and interest from the State. The Court held that while the principal amount was paid, the claim for interest required a separate and fresh legal proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous; liberty granted to initiate fresh legal proceedings to claim differential/interest amounts.

Satya Sai Construction Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMWTAGADDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 968 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Satya Sai Construction, Rep. Lakshmi Kota Satish Nalazerla, S/o Subba Rao, Aged 37 years, Occ: contractor, R/o.30-5-20^Gummallavari street,Tanuku , Tanuku (M), West Godavari Dist.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1. The State of A.P, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Irrigation, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Dist.,

¶13

The Principle Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, The Government of Andhra Pradesh2nd block, 1st floor, RObm No.287, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist.,

¶14

The Engineer in Chief, Irrigation Department, 27-20-44,^MuseumRd, Venkateshwara Rao Street, Governorpeta, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520 00.,

¶15

The District Collector, Eluru District, Eluru, Eluru^Dist.

¶16

The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle,^Eluru.

¶17

The Executive Engineer, G.W. Division, Nidadavolu,^{EluruDistrict}

¶18

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

'/vR^tition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{Indiaprayingthatin} th^^cjrcurnstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} - -‘a.'''' j?'''' be pleased to issue order or orders, direction or directions.^WritorWrits particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamous or any appropriate writ declare the action of the respondents in not paying^{thebillsforexecutionof} work vide A) Agreement No. 125 of 2021-22 (Rs 6,02,135/-) B) Agreement No. 126 of 2021-22 (Rs 5,78,976/-) C) Agreement No. 127 of 2021- 22(Rs 8,86,998/-) D) Agreement No.128 of 2021-22(6,60,033)^{totalanamountof} Rs 27,28,142/-to the petitioner with 24percent interest till today from the date of completion of respective works as illegal, arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 19 (i)g, 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

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 to direct the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 27,28,142/towards payment of above final bills for the contract works under taken by the petitioner long back, pending disposal of main WP pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K L N SWAMY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 3 to 6: GP FOR IRRIGATION^COMM AREA DEV

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR FINANCE AND^PLANNING

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

r t.

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.968 of 2023

¶30

ORDER;

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader that the principal amount was already paid, as claimed by the petitioner and also the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the further claim of interest for delayed payment can be agitated by way of initiation of separate/fresh legal proceedings^isalso valid and sustainable.

¶35

In view of the facts and circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the present Writ Petition is dismissed as

¶36

¶37

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. No costs.

¶38

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶39

shall stand closed.

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

SDI- A. VIJAYA BABU assistant registrar

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

./1. One CC to SRI K L N SWAMY Advocate [OPUC]

¶45

Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV, High^CourtOf Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

' 3. Two C.D Copies

MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/02/2024

g 2 <1 JUL 232'! q
^ Current Section
T--

ORDER

WP.No.968 of 2023

DISMISSING THE W.P

AS INFRUCTUOUS

WITHOUT COSTS

Satya Sai Construction v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Sai Construction v. the State of Ap

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

Vennapusa Reddygari Sreenivasa Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Battula Ramanamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sangu Rameswara Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nadimpalli Venkatraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karumuru Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ratakonda Lakshmaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh