R R Associates Vs the State of Ap — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

R R Associates Vs the State of Ap — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to pay the bills due payable to the petitioner for the works executed, to be completed within eight (08) weeks, subject to the petitioner submitting a security bond for the amount released; respondents retain the right to proceed in accordance with law upon an adverse vigilance report. No order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-contractor is entitled to payment/release of the approved final bills for works executed for the Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation notwithstanding the pendency of a vigilance enquiry into those works. +1 more

Court's answer

The bills due payable to the petitioner for the works executed must be paid without any further delay; the absence of a time frame for completion of the vigilance enquiry cannot justify withholding payment.

Ratio / Principle

In the event an adverse vigilance report is arrived at against the works completed by the petitioner, the respondents shall have the right to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The petitioner shall furnish a security bond for the amount released; if it is found that amounts are due payable, the department may take appropriate action for recovery.ratio¶¶34
The payment exercise directed by the Court shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition by a contractor (R R Associates) seeking release of final bills approved by the competent authority for works executed within Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation (works done in 2022-23 and 2024). Respondents opposed payment on the ground that a Vigilance Enquiry was initiated on 09.08.2024 covering the petitioner's works for 2019-2024, with reports awaited. HELD: (i) bills due payable to the petitioner must be paid without further delay, since there is no time frame for completion of the vigilance enquiry and no methodology for verifying five-year-old works was placed before the Court; (ii) if an adverse vigilance report is arrived at, the respondents may proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law; (iii) the petitioner shall furnish a security bond for the amount released, and recovery action lies if amounts are found due payable; (iv) the exercise shall be completed within eight (08) weeks of receipt of the order. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

[3457]

APHC010253882024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12892/2024

Between:

R R ASSOCIATES, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI RAGHAVA REDDY VIPPALA, S/O CHINNA SAMBIRDEDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 16-38, NEAR CHINNAMASID, TADIKONDA, GUNTUR DISTRICT .

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AP, FINANCE DEPARTMENT. A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVALI - 522 238

THE DIRECTORATE OF WORKS AND ACCOUNTS, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND ACCOUNTS 3RD FLOOR, C BLOCK, ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ANDHRA PRADESH AT PRIME HILL CREST, VADDESWARAM, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2

THE ANDHRA PRADESH COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CFMS, CEO, NIDHI BHAVAN, APIIC PARK, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, MANGALAGIRI -TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT .

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

The Court made the following:

3

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning and learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition is filed by the contractor, who executed various works within the limits of the Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation. The petitioner has completed the works to the satisfaction of the Mangalagiri-Tadepalli Municipal Corporation and the final bills were also approved by the competent authority. However, the bills were not released. The petitioner executed the works during the year 2022–23, and also executed some works in the year 2024. It is submitted that the competent authority has approved the bills; however, there has been no payment forthcoming from the Corporation. Aggrieved by the non-payment of the bills by the Corporation, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the above writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Corporation submits that on 09.08.2024, the Vigilance Enquiry was initiated against the works executed by the petitioner and the Vigilance Enquiry is being conducted on the works which are entrusted to the petitioner. It is also submitted in the counter that the Vigilance Department is taking up verification of the works executed by the petitioner for the year 2019-2024 and the reports were awaited.

4

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the bills due payable to the petitioner for the works executed by him would have to be paid without any further delay. There is no time frame for completion of the vigilance enquiry. That apart the learned Standing Counsel has not submitted on the methodology adopted by the vigilance committee to verify the works completed about five years ago. In so far as the Vigilance Enquiry is concerned, in the event an adverse report against the works completed by the petitioner is arrived at, the respondents shall have the right to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Further, the petitioner shall submit a security bond for the amount released and in case it is found that they are due payable, the department can take appropriate action for recovery of the amount. It is needless to mention that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as

to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

Date: 28.08.2025 PNS

5