Powertech Electroinfra Private Limited Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT, OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT, OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

SAMAGRA SHIKSHA, REP. BY THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, HAVING OFFICE AT KBC BOYS HIGH SCHOOL PREMISES. OPPOSITE RYTHU BAZAR, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-520010.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 andamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the admitted pending dues of the Petitioner of Rs. 15,45,91,321.00 (Rupees Fifteen crore forty five lakhs ninety one thousand three hundred and twenty

¶18

2

¶19

one only) pursuant to the successful completion of supply in connection with Work Order No. Lr.Rc.No.SS-16021/68/2023-CMO SEG-SSA-13 dated 15.03.2024 and additional work order, being Lr.Rc.No.SS-16021/22/2024-GMO SEG-SSA-4 dated 21.08.2024 issued in terms of the Government Order being G.O. Ms. No. 2 dated 10.01.2024 and the tender agreement as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), Gonstitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents herein to pay an amount of Rs. 15,45,91,321.00/- along with pendent lite and future interest @ 18 percent per annum till the date of payment of amount to the Petitioner and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 pay the Petitioner the admitted pending dues of the Petitioner of Rs. 15,45,91,321.00 (Rupees Fifteen crore forty five lakhs ninety one thousand three hundred and twenty one only) pursuant to the successful completion of supply in connection with Work Order No. Lr.Rc.No.SS- 16021/68/2023-CMO SEC-SSA-13 dated 15.03.2024 and additional work orders, Lr;Rc.No.SS-16021/22/2024-GMO SEC-SSA-4 dated 21.08.2024 issued in terms of the Government Order being G.O. Ms. No. 2 dated 10.01.2024 and the tender agreement; and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.VARUN BYREDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.RAGHU BABU KALAMATA SC For Samagra Siksha

¶26

2.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶27

3.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.1096 of 2026

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.15,45,91,321/- along with interest @ 18% per annum for supply of 8,21,606 units and 2,969 additional units of „Pair of Shoes and two pairs of socks‟ as per Work Order vide Lr.Rc.No.SS-16201/68/2023-CMO SEC-SSA-13, dated 15.03.2024 and additional work order being Lr.Rc.No.SS-16021/22/2024CMO SEC-SSA-4 dated 21.08.2024.

¶34

The facts, in brief, are as follows:

¶35

The State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10.01.2024 giving permission to the Project Director of Samagra Shiksha to conduct negotiations with vendors for repeat orders for implementing the “ Jagananna Vidya Kanuka ” scheme (excluding text books and work books). Pursuant thereto, negotiations were held and Respondent No.3 had issued Work Order vide Lr.Rc.No.SS-16201/68/2023-CMO SECSSA-13, dated 15.03.2024 to the Petitioner for supply of 8,19,449 units of Shoes and socks to the students studying Class I to X in all Government Management Schools for the Academic Year 2024-25 at Rs.187.48/each pair. The Petitioner had supplied the Shoes and socks in terms of the above Work Order and a satisfactory Work Completion Certificate

¶36

4

¶37

was also issued on 04.04.2025. However, the amount of

¶38

Rs.15,45,91,321/- due towards the supply was not made to the Petitioner despite repeated requests.

¶39

In the Counter-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.3, there is no dispute with regard to the supply of shoes and socks as per the Work Order. The relevant portion of the Counter-Affidavit is extracted below;

¶40

“10. I humbly submit that this answering respondent submitted the entire bills of the student kit supplied for the year 202425 vide Letter Rc.No.SS-16021/68/2023-CMO-SEC-SSA, dated 12.07.2024 and 14.09.2025, seeking administrative sanction. Accordingly, Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1, School Education (Prog.II) Department, Dated 19.01.2026 accorded administrative sanction. I humbly submit that as stated supra, as soon as these answering respondents receives the amount, after due verification of the delivery challans, based on the data uploaded in the app and as well as in terms of the tender conditions and agreement clauses, reconciliation will be conducted with the petitioner and the payment shall be made to the petitioner.

¶41

11. I humbly submit that as stated supra as the Government has accorded administrative sanctions, this answering respondent has submitted the bills to the respondent no.2, token numbers were raised and same are pending for clearance, which shall take minimum of 8 weeks. Thus, unless the respondent no.2 releases the amount, these answering respondents could not release the payment and so far as the claim of interest is concerned, since there was a delay in getting administrative sanction from the Government which is purely on the administrative grounds, the writ petitioners cannot claim the interest on the delayed payment. Thus, the petitioner herein has not warranted any grounds against these

¶42

5

¶43

answering respondents for the interference of the Hon’ble High Court, and the writ petition is liable for dismissal against these answering respondents.”

¶44

It is pertinent to mention that paragraphs 8 and 9 of G.O.Ms.No.1, School Education (Prog.II) Department, dated 19.01.2026 reads as under:

¶45

8. Government, after careful examination of the matter, hereby:

¶46

i. accord administrative approval for an amount of Rs.944.53 crores (Central share of Rs.291.88 crores + State share of Rs.652.65 crores) for procurement and supply of Student Kits to students studying classes I to X in all Government Management Schools for the Academic Year 2024-25 i.e. pertaining to purchase orders given on 15.03.2024 without financial concurrence and

¶47

ii. provide budget provision for an amount of Rs.652.65 crores under the relevant head from the State Budget.

¶48

9. The State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, shall take further necessary action accordingly, in the matter.

¶49

Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks for interest on the admitted amounts towards delayed payment. It is further submitted that due to non-payment of dues to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is suffering from severe stress caused by the suppliers of raw material.

¶50

Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education for the Respondents. 7. Taking note of the submissions made by both the counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶51

6

¶52

i) The Respondents are directed to disburse the admitted principal amount due to the Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶53

ii) The Respondents are also directed to examine the claim of interest on delayed payments to the Petitioner independently taking note of the business practices;

¶54

iii) No order as to costs.

¶55

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

¶56

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶57

Date: 16.02.2026

¶58

KLP

Powertech Electroinfra Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Powertech Electroinfra Private Limited 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dosa Murali Krishna Kumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Jinni Venkateswar Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Balaji Naik, Vs The Registrar, Dr. Ntr University of Health Sciences

M/s. Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Limited Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Bareedu Yashodha Sai Sree Vs the State of Ap

Induri Lokeshwar Reddy, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh