M/S. P.T.R Brothers Projects., Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. P.T.R BRO T HERS PROJECTS.,, REP.BY.LT S MANAGING PARTNER, P. KE E RTHI REDDY W/O. P. THIRUPATHI REDDY, AGE 50 YEARS, D/O. 1-1226-A, NEAR VINAYAKA TE M PLE,BANGLA THOTA , NAWAB P ET, NELLORE , ANDHRA PRADES H .

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, R O ADS AND BUILDINGS(R AND B) D EPORTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR.

¶13

THE SUPERINTE N DING ENGINEERR AND B, DEP A RTMENT OF ROADS AND BUIL D INGS (RANDB) CIRCLE, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERR AND B, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DIVISION, KURN O OL DISTRICT.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER R AND B, MDR'S,VIJAYAWAD A .

¶16

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AN D PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAV A THI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Artic l e 226 of the Constitution of India pr a ying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig h Court may be pleased to issue an ap p ropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one

¶19

2

¶20

in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the part -I payments of Rs. 3,26,92,416/- ( Three Crores Twenty Six Lakhs, Ninety Two Thousand Four Hundred and Sixteen Rupees only), even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e.I. Improvements to the riding surface of (1) devanur (MIDTHUR) To Orvakal road from Km.3/0 9/0 (2) velugodu - Gargayapuram road from KM 6/775-7/070 and11/3 to 17/8 in nandyail District(2nd call)

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

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 forthwith consider releasing the amounts RS. 3,26,92,416/-( Three Crores Twenty Six Lakhs, Ninety Two Thousand Four Hundred and Sixteen Rupees only) payable to the petitioner herein, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶27

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶28

3

¶29

The Court made the following order:

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that even after finalization of the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., ‘Improvements to the riding surface of (1) devanur (MIDTHUR) to Orvakal raod from Km.3/0 9/0 (2) Velugodu-Gargayapuram road from Km.6/775-7/070&11/3 to 17/8 in Nandyal District’, the respondent authorities are withholding the part-I payment of Rs.3,26,92,416/-

¶31

Heard Sri Devasri Roshan Kancharla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings Department and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance Department.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that despite the completion of the contractual work and the finalization of the bills payable to the petitioner, the respondent authorities have failed to release the amounts. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings Department, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit of respondent No.3, which was placed across the Bench, contended that the gross value of the work executed by the petitioner is Rs.3,26,92,416/- and after deducting the statutory recoveries of Rs.29,46,390/- the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.2,97,46,026/- He further submitted that the said bill was passed on 13.06.2025 and uploaded in NIDHI module vide Bill No.2025-9180758 and the status of the bill was shown as ‘Waiting for fund

¶34

4

¶35

clearance’, however sought six months’ time for release of the said amount payable to the petitioner.

¶36

To the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner reported no objection and prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

¶37

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking the submissions of learned counsel for the parties into consideration, as the authorities have expressed their intention to pay the entitled amount to the petitioner, there is no purpose in keeping this Writ Petition pending. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the same, with the consent of both the parties, at the admission stage itself, by passing the following order:

¶38

“The respondent authorities are directed to pay the legally entitled amount to the petitioner within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶39