M/s R.R Associates, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ANDHRA PRADESH AT PRIME HILL CREST,

¶17

2

¶18

VADDESWARAM, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)

¶27

2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶28

3.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

4

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶40

Date: 28.08.2025 PNS

M/s R.R Associates, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s R.R Associates, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanakamedala Arun Rakesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Mohan Vs Sri Peeyush Kumar, I.A.S.

N T Dastagiri Vs Mahaboob Basha

M/S Mvv and Gv Housing a Partnership Firm Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R R Associates Vs the State of Ap

R R Associates Vs the State of Ap