Disposed¶38

M/S. Surya Infrastructures v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jul 2026WP/15998/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refund of security deposits; FSD EMD release; works contract deposits withheld after completion; observation period completed; Kakinada Municipal Corporation; contractor vs municipality; Article 226 writ of mandamus; arbitrariness Article 14 19(1)(g) 21; six-week deadline to verify and release deposits; Rs. 33,00,500; disposed without costs; miscellaneous applications closed; Harinath.N J; AP High Court Amaravati 06.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs, with a direction to the concerned respondent to verify and release the FSD and EMD deposited by the petitioner towards various works, preferably within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; pending miscellaneous applications closed. ¶38

M/S. Surya Infrastructures Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' non-refund of the FSD and EMD amounts of Rs. 33,00,500 deposited at the time of contract, even after completion of the observation periods, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21, warranting release and repayment of the deposited amounts immediately with 12% interest.

¶22

Court's answer

This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the concerned respondent to verify and release the Further Security Deposit (FSD) and Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) deposited by the petitioner towards various works.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The verification and release of the FSD and EMD was to be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶37

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the disposal, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Harinath.N, J., Amaravati) disposed of Writ Petition No. 15998/2026 filed by M/s Surya Infrastructures under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the Kakinada Municipal Corporation / Executive Engineer / State respondents' failure to refund Further Security Deposit (FSD) and Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) totalling Rs. 33,00,500 deposited at the time of the works contracts, even after completion of the works and the observation periods, alleging illegality, arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21. Respondents' standing counsel conceded certain amounts were deferred but did not dispute completion of work or recording of progress in the M-Books. The Court directed the concerned respondent to verify and release the FSD and EMD deposited towards various works as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs were awarded and pending miscellaneous applications stood closed. No precedent was cited or relied upon.

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement :

¶2

Date of uploading :

¶3

APHC010301342026

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

[3457]

¶7

MONDAY, THE 6^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO: 15998/2026

¶11

Between:

¶12

M/S. SURYA INFRASTRUCTURES, REP.BY MANAGING PARTNER, YALLA SURYA CHAKRAVARTHY, S/O. YALTA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA, AGE. 36 YEARS, D.NO. 32-7-20, YALLA VANI VEEDHI, CINIMA ROAD, KAKINADA(URBAN), EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR.522238

¶16

THE KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT.533001

¶17

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT.533001

¶18

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238

¶19

¶20

HN, J W.P.No.15998_2026

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

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 order or orders, direction or directions, Writ or Writs particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamous or any appropriate writ declare the action of the respondents in not refunding the deposited amounts as dseposited at the time of contract, as security to under take the works, even completing the observation period amounting to Rs. 33,00,500percent (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs, five Hundred only) to the petitioner with interest, till the date of refund from the date of completion of respective observation periods, as illegal, arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 19(i) (g), 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to release and repay the deposited amounts for the above works immediately with interest of 12percent and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶24

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 the amount of Rs. 33,00,500% (Rupees Thirty Three /Lakhss five Hundred only)towards payment of deposited amounts for the contract works under taken by the petitioner long back, pending disposal of main WP No. of 2026 and to pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.M Krishna Rao SC for skl vzm kkd Municipal Corporations

¶29

2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶30

3.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶31

¶32

HN, J W.P.No.15998_2026

¶33

ORDER :

¶34

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

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entrusted various works and while entering into agreements deposited the Further Security Deposit (FSD), Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) as required under the terms of contract. The petitioner has executed works as entrusted by the respondents and also submitted the final bills. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that once work is completed there is no justification in withholding the FSD and EMD amounts.

¶36

Learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that certain amounts were deferred by the Municipality, however, in so far as completion of work and recording of the progress of work in the M-Books is not disputed.

¶37

On these considerations, this Court is inclined to dispose off the present writ petition directing the concerned respondent to verify and release Further Security Deposit (FSD), Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) deposited by the petitioner towards various works to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38