M/S. Paidala Tirupathi Reddy and Brothers. Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. PAIDALA TIRUPATHI REDDY AND BROTHERS., REP.BY.ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P. THIRUPATHI REDDY, AGE 52 YEARS, D/O. 1-1226-A, NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE,BANGLA THOTA , NAWABP ET, NELLORE , ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUILDINGS(RAND B) DEPORTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERRAND B, DEPARTMENT OF ROADS AND BUILDINGS (RAND B) CIRCLE, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERR AND B, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DIVISION, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶16

THE CHIEF ENGINEER RAND B, NHAND CRF,VIJAYAWADA.

¶17

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

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

2

¶21

1.SODUM ANVESHA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶24

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

ORAL ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri Sodum Anvesha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Balaji, learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings and Sri K. Rama Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning.

¶28

In compliance with the Order of this Court dated 19.12.2025, insofar as the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, is concerned, an application has been moved by the learned Counsel for the Respondent stating that he has remained in Delhi on official work. Both the Counsel submit that paragraph 5 of the Order of this Court dated 19.12.2025 has been complied with.

¶29

Sri Balaji, learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, dated 26.12.2025, along with the status on the website with regard to the claim of the Petitioner, which indicates that the same is awaiting fund clearance. The Written Instructions indicates that the bills have been admitted.

¶30

Sri K. Rama Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department, dated 25.12.2025. Copies of the said Written Instructions are supplied to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the same are taken on record.

¶31

The relevant portion of the Written Instructions is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶32

“2. In this regard, it is submitted that the TR&B Department has submitted the file on 16-10-2025 for release of Rs. 22,53,29,668/- towards payment of the bills against

¶33

3

¶34

the work done by the Agency. After examination of the file, Finance Department issued Budget Release Order vide G.O.Rt.No.3017, dated 23-12-2025 releasing an amount of Rs.28.79 crores including for payment of bills involved in WP No.14582 of 2025.

¶35

3. It is respectfully submitted that the Department submitted the bills on 25-12-2025 vide CFMS Bill Nos. 20252169766 (for Rs.6,20,19,707/-) & 2025-2169333 (for Rs. 16,31,59,507/-) and the same will be cleared in Finance Department as per procedure. It is requested to appraise the above position to the Hon'ble High Court, and seek (6) months' time for clearance of these Bills involved in WP No.14582 of 2025.

¶36

Yours faithfully,

¶37

for Principal Secretary to Government”

¶38

The above extract indicates that the Principal Secretary is seeking approximately six (06) months’ time for clearance of the bills.

¶39

Having noted the above extract of the Written Instructions, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Writ Petition with a direction to all the Respondents, including Respondent No.5, to complete the entire administrative process, including the uploading of the bills on the NIDHI Portal, within a period of six (06) months from today, both inter-departmental and intra-departmental, by mutual cooperation and coordination, and transfer the amount to the bank account of the Writ Petitioner wi t hin four (04) weeks thereafter.

¶40

The Writ Petitioner is directed to submit a copy of the bank account details to the Competent Authority within a period of four weeks from today. 9. Needless to state, the Respondents shall be obligated to freshly upload the bills on the NIDHI Portal if the Current Financial Year has elapsed before uploading the same.

¶41

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

¶42

4

¶43

The President of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association is directed to refund the amounts paid by the Officers as fine. Let the same be done with two weeks. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the President of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association for effective compliance.

¶44

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

¶45

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Date: 26.12.2025 DSV

5

100

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶50

WRIT PETITION NO: 14582/2025

26.12.2025

DSV

6

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. WRIT PETITION NO: 14582/2025

¶55

PROCEEDING SHEET

¶56

Sl. No	DATE	ORDER	Office Note
	26.12.2025	GRKP, J
		I.A.No.4 of 2025 Having regard to the contents of the Affidavit filed in support of the Application, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Application. 2. Accordingly, I.A.No.4 of 2025 is allowed. Counter Affidavit is taken on record.
		____________ GRKP, J I.A.No.5 of 2025 Having regard to the contents of the Affidavit filed in support of the Application, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Application. 2. Accordingly, I.A.No.5 of 2025 is allowed.
		____________ GRKP, J WRIT PETITION NO: 14582/2025 Writ Petition is allowed. (vide separate order)
		___________ GRKP, J DSV

¶57

7

M/S. Paidala Tirupathi Reddy and Brothers. v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Paidala Tirupathi Reddy and Brothers. 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

Lankapotu Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy ( Withdrawn) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kondannagari Prakash Kumar Vs K. Devaki

Sri v.L.S.N.Murthy, Vs Smt. B. Udaya Lakshmi

M/S Adani Wilmar Limited, Kurnool Dist & Another Vs Chairman, Aperc, Hyd & 5 Ot

Kumba Balamuragaiah Vs Sri.Peeyush Kumar, IAS

K Lalitha Lakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh