Kalluru Niranjan Reddy Vs the State of Ap

KALLURU NIRANJ A N REDDY, S/O. K.PRABHKHAR R EDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YE A RS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R / O.D.NO.233-7, CHENNAREDDY C OLONY, PULIVENDULA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION WAT E R RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, S ECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GU N TUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, S ECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GU N TUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE CHIEF EN G INEER, MINOR IRRIGATION A ND WATER RECOURSES DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, N T R DISTRICT ERSTWHILE KRIS H NA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE SUPERINT E NDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, KADAPA, Y SR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCE D EPARTMENT, KADAPA DIVISION, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT .

¶18

2

¶19

VS,J W.P.No.231 of 2025

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue appropriate writ, direction, order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in questioning the action of the respondents in not releasing bill payment for the work i.e.. Removal of Jungle and Desilting of Pedda kudala vanka, Chinna kudala vanka and Yerramreddypalli vanka of Yerramreddypalli Tank near Yerramreddypalli (V) in Pulivendula (M) of YSR District in respect of the bill amount of Rs. 17,00,254/- for the work executed by the petitioner despite the claim for the payment of bill amount is raised (Token No.2024-173138) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 17,00,254/- towards the bill amount for the works executed by the petitioner and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 pleased to direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 17,00,254/towards bill amount for the works executed by the petitioner i.e.. Removal of Jungle and Desilting of Pedda kudala vanka, Chinna kudala vanka and Yerramreddypalli vanka of Yerramreddypalli Tank near Yerramreddypalli (V) in Pulivendula (M) of YSR District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.K NAVEEN KUMAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV

¶28

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

3

VS,J

W.P.No.231 of 2025

The Court made the following Order:

¶33

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶34

“… to issue appropriate writ, direction order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in questioning the action of the respondents in not releasing bill payment for the work i.e., Removal of Jungle and Desilting of Pedda kudala vanka, Chinna kudala vanka and Yerramreddypalli vanka of Yerramreddypalli Tank near Yerramreddypalli (V) in Pulivendula (M) of YSR District in respect of the bill amount of Rs.17,00,254/for the work executed by the petitioner despite the claim for the payment of bill amount is raised (Token No.2024-173138) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.17,00,254/- towards the bill amount for the works executed by the petitioner and to pass such other order or order s ….”

¶35

The petitioner had been awarded the contract of work(s) by the Irrigation Department. After execution of the said contract, the respondents also issued quality control certificate to a tune of Rs.15,16,568/-. As the payment of the said amount has not been made by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

¶36

It is the contention of the petitioner that even though the respondents admitted that the petitioner is entitled for payment of the aforesaid sum of money, no payment is being made. The petitioner contends that such nonpayment of money is clearly arbitrary and high-handed requiring the interference of this Court.

¶37

4

¶38

VS,J W.P.No.231 of 2025

¶39

This Court, in various orders, including the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch had taken the view that such non-payment of dues is arbitrary and that such dues need to be cleared by the respondents at the earliest.

¶40

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, on oral instructions, states that, since the budget was not released by the Government, the bills were not paid to the petitioner. Soon after release of the budget by the Government, the bills will be paid to the petitioner, however, admitted the amount payable to the petitioner as per the quality control certificate filed by the petitioner to a tune of Rs.15,16,568/-.

¶41

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the directions of this Court in various cases and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the amount to the petitioner in accordance with the quality control certificate dated 23.02.2024 issued by the respondents within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

As far as interest component is concerned, if there is any subsisting clause in the agreement/work order envisaging payment of interest upon any amount which is due and payable, the same is binding upon both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

5

¶44

VS,J W.P.No.231 of 2025

¶45

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶46

closed.

¶47

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶48

Dated: 22.09.2025 MDP

Kalluru Niranjan Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalluru Niranjan Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Penmetsa Satyanarayana Raju Vs Sankuratri Uttama Rao

Palakondu Ramanaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammad Arif Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

N Yeswanth Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Desu Rama Krishna Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Srinivasa Rice and Flour Mill Vs State of A.P. and 5 others