Yashashvi Constructions Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Yashashvi Constructions Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the concerned respondents to verify and release the bill payments as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six (06) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action in not releasing and paying the bill amounts of Rs. 28,62,015/- (Rs. 9,61,875/- + Rs. 19,00,140/-) with interest to the petitioner, despite total works having been executed and completed, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and whether the respondents should be directed to release and pay the said amounts.

Court's answer

The concerned respondents are hereby directed to verify and release the payments as expeditiously as possible.

Ratio / Principle

The release of payments is to be completed preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 8567 of 2025, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), decided on 22.09.2025 by Justice Harinath.N. Yashashvi Constructions, rep. by Voleti Srinivasa Rao, filed a writ under Article 226 read with Section 151 CPC seeking a mandamus against the State of Andhra Pradesh (MAUD and Finance & Planning Departments), the Commissioner and Director of MAUD, the District Collector, Kakinada, the Municipal Corporation, Kakinada and its Superintending and Executive Engineers, complaining of non-release of bill amounts of Rs. 28,62,015/- (Rs. 9,61,875/- + Rs. 19,00,140/-) with interest for two CC internal road and internal drain works in the 48th Division, GGMP, executed under Agreements Nos. 259/2023-24 and 260/2023-24, both dated 27.01.2024, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 21. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation did not dispute completion of the works. The Court directed the concerned respondents to verify and release the payments as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous petitions. The interest sought in the prayer was not specifically dealt with in the operative directions.

APHC010164072025

[3457]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 8567/2025

Between:

YASHASHVI CONSTRUCTIONS, REP BY VOLETI SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O ASHIKA RESIDENCY CROSS ROAD NO 7 NEAR RTO OFFICE, SURESH NAGAR, KAKINADA (URBAN) KAKINADA DIST.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI.

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA.

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KAKINADA REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KAKINADA TOWN, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT

2

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

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action on the part of the respondents herein, not releasing and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs. 28,62,015/-( Rs. 9,61,875/Rs. 19,00,140/-) with interest to the petitioner even though total works were executed and completed as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, and 21 of Constitution of India and Consequentially to direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs. 28,62,015/-( Rs. 9,61,875/Rs. 19,00,140/-) with interest to the petitioner forthwith, and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs. 28,62,015/-( Rs. 9,61,875/- + Rs. 19,00,140/- ) with interest to the petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SAMEERA BOKKA

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:-

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was awarded the works of Providing CC Internal Road and Internal Drains at Amaravathi Nursing School Road and Madhura Nagar in 48^th Division GGMP, vide Agreement No.259/2023-24, dated 27.01.2024, and Providing CC Internal Road and Internal Drains at Rajiv Gruhakalpa Apartments and Janachaitanya Layout in 48^th Division GGMP, vide Agreement No.260/2023-24, dated 27.01.2024.

The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner duly executed all the said works and thereafter submitted the final bills, which were duly endorsed by the competent authority. A statement detailing the works executed by the petitioner was also prepared. However, in spite of the completion of all procedural formalities, the payments towards the completed works have not been released till date.

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

During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation does not dispute the submissions made by the petitioner with respect to the completion of the works undertaken.

Considering the submissions, the concerned respondents are hereby directed to verify and release the payments as expeditiously as possible

4

preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

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

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________

JUSTICE HARINATH.N 22.09.2025 PNS