Mpr Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

MPR CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS, MANAGING DIRECTOR M.PRASAD REDDY, S/O. M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGE 52 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO. 4-271, MUDDANUR ROAD, VILLAGE AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS , PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522 238.

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS , PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522 238.

¶14

THE A P STATE, EDUCATION AND WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APEWIDC REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VADDESWARAM VILLAGE,TADEPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522 501

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, A P STATE EDUCATION WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APEWIDC VADDESWARAM VILLAGE TADEPALLI MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT.522 501

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, APEWIDC, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.516 001

¶17

2

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, A P STATE EDUCATION WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APEWIDC KADAPA YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 516 001

¶19

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT.516 001

¶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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the admitted final bills to the petitioner for the work pertaining to completion of incomplete work at Government High School (Main ) at Ahobilapuram at Pulivendula in YSR District, for an amount of Rs. 53,69,529/even after the entries recorded in M-Book is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, high handed, and contrary to the procedure established by law apart from being voilative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to release the admitted final bill amounts of Rs. 53,69,529/-along with interest forthwith in the interest of justice and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 to direct the respondents to pay the admitted final bill amounts to the petitioner for the work pertaining to completion of incomplete work at Government High School (Main ) at Ahobilapuram at Pulivendula in YSR District, for an amount of Rs. 53,69,529/-pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.NAVULURU KRISHNA SAI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶28

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 11060 of 2026

¶33

ORDER:-

¶34

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226

¶35

of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

¶36

“….to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the admitted final bills to the petitioner for the work pertaining to completion of incomplete work at Government High School (Main ) at Ahobilapuram at Pulivendula in YSR District, for an amount of Rs. 53,69,529/-even after the entries recorded in M- Book is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, high handed, and contrary to the procedure established by law apart from being voilative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to release the admitted final bill amounts of Rs. 53,69,529/-along with interest forthwith in the interest of justice and pass….”

¶37

The sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioner challenged the inaction of the respondents in not releasing the amounts even after completion of the entire works entrusted to him.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Radha Krishna, counsel representing Sri V.C.H. Naidu, learned Standing Counsel for APEWIDC/respondent Nos.3 to 6.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, submits that in view of the non-release of the admitted amounts, the petitioner is facing multifarious problems, physically and fiscally. Hence, he submits that the release of the amounts is just and essential.

¶40

4

¶41

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, places a copy of the written instructions dated 23.04.2026 issued by the concerned authority of the Corporation and submits that six months‟ time may be granted for paying the admitted amount of Rs.47,22,196/- to the petitioner.

¶42

Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner completed the works and has yet to receive payment, this Court finds the respondents‟ failure to pay is unjustified. However, taking into consideration of the ground realities to settle the admitted amounts, the respondents are granted rational time to settle the dues.

¶43

It is relevant to note the case of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar¹ ,

¶44

wherein, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court at para 34 held as follows:

¶45

“…….The State may not be liable in relation to the day to day functioning of the Companies, but its liability would arise on its failure to perform the constitutional duties and functions by the public sector undertakings, as in relation thereto the State's constitutional obligations The State acts in a fiduciary capacity. The failure on the part of the State in a case of this nature must also be viewed from the angle that the statutory authorities have failed and/or neglected to enforce the social welfare legislations enacted in this behalf e.g. Payment of Wages Act. Minimum Wages Act etc Such welfare activities as adumbrated in Part IV of the Constitution of India indisputably would cast a duty upon the State being a welfare State and its statutory authorities to do all things which they are statutorily obligated to perform…….”

¶46

1 (2003) 6 SCC 1

¶47

5

¶48

It is apt to note that a mere financial incapacity/poor financial conditions, as stated by the respondent Corporation, for non-releasing of amounts after utilising the services of the petitioner, cannot be a ground.

¶49

Very recently the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India held in Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractor Vs Chief General Manager and Others² , in vivid terms categorically in the following manner.

¶50

“8. Be that as it may, the High Court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction…..”

¶51

In view of the above stated legal position, the respondent Corporation, being the instrumentality of the „State‟ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is bound to release the amount for the undisputed works done by the petitioner, without any further delay. A mere financial incapacity or paucity of funds cannot be a valid defence for non-fulfilment of such statutory obligations, more particularly, when the works executed by the petitioner are admitted by the respondent Corporation.

¶52

So far as the interest portion is concerned, the Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director & Ors. Vs. Sree Balaji Constructions & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.60 of 2025) held that the award of

¶53

2 (2025) SCC Online SC 1400

¶54

6

¶55

interest on delayed payments was unsustainable in the absence of specific terms and conditions of the relevant agreement between the parties, but in the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not touched on the said point. However, the Hon‟ble Division Bench in similar circumstances made it clear that the parties are at liberty to pursue their claims before an appropriate forum in accordance with the Law.

¶56

In the light of the above legal position, coupled with the fact that the liability for the undisputed works was admitted by the respondents, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release the amount payable to the petitioner, within a period of six (06) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate civil court with regard to interest, if so advised.

¶57

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶58

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

Date: 24.04.2026 RMR

7

62

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM