Disposed¶36

R C Infrastructures v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Nov 2025WP/30478/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

R C Infrastructures v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, W.P. No.30478 OF 2025 (HC AP, Amaravati, Harinath.N, 06.11.2025): contractor seeks release of unpaid, approved final bill of Rs.15,04,511/- for temporary water supply works (bore wells/pipelines, Rajanagar layout, Ward No.2) awarded under Agreement No.33/2022-2023 dt.11.04.2022; completion undisputed; Court directs 3rd respondent to verify and pay within six weeks; petition disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to verify and release the payment due payable to the petitioner within six weeks; writ petition disposed of with no costs and pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶36

R C Infrastructures Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010560272025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3457]

¶5

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 30478/2025

Between:

R C Infrastructures

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.Sri TURAGA SAI SURYA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

Ld. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶19

Smt.Sirisha Rani Vallabhaneni, Ld. Standing Counsel for R.3.

¶20

Sri K.Mallikharjuna Murthy, Ld. Standing Counsel for R.5.

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

-2-

¶23

W.P. No.30478 OF 2025 Date of order: 06.11.2025

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.30478 OF 2025

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents for non-payment of the bills for the works undertaken by the petitioner.

¶28

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

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3^rd respondent invited tenders for the work ‘providing temporary water supply for construction activity under pedalandariki illu drilling additional bore wells and necessary pipelines in layout No.088801LA113931, Rajanagar layout in Ward No.2’. The petitioner was awarded the said work under Agreement No.33/2022-2023, dt.11.04.2022.

¶30

The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner duly executed the work to the satisfaction of the competent authorities of the 3^rd respondent. It is further submitted that after execution of the works, the competent authority recorded the progress of the work in M Books and thereafter the petitioner has submitted a final

¶31

-3-

¶32

W.P. No.30478 OF 2025 Date of order: 06.11.2025

¶33

bill for a sum of Rs.15,04,511/- and the same was approved by the authorities of the 3^rd respondent, but so far no payment has been made to the petitioner.

¶34

The learned standing counsel for the 3^rd respondent, on oral instructions, submits that the work undertaken by the petitioner was completed to the satisfaction of the 3^rd respondent and the payment would be made in due course.

¶35

Considering the submissions that the work completed by the petitioner is not in dispute, there shall be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to verify and release the payment due payable to the petitioner within a period of six weeks.

¶36

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶37

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶39

R C Infrastructures v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R C Infrastructures 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

Sri Garuda Projects Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Rama Seva Samajam(Yadava) Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Liyakath Ali Vs the State of Ap

M.Ramesh, Vs Chittoor Municipal Corporation

V.S.Charless, Vs Chittoor Municipal Corporation

M/S Vega Contractors and Developers Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh