Sri Datta Sai Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

[3458]

¶2

APHC010321872026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 17193/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

SRI DATTA SAI CONSTRUCTIONS, ASM/S SRI DATTA SAI CONSTRUCTIONS REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, B.B APPA RAO, S/O PARDESI NAIDU, AGE 61 YRS, D.NO.4-69-17/1, LAW SONS BAY COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 017

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, A.P. 522238 2

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, A.P.522238

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, D.NO.40-622A, KANDHARI HOTEL ROAD, REVENUE COLONY, VIJAYAWADA, A.P.520010

¶14

THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, O/O TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 40-1-86, FORTUNE MURALI PARK ROAD, REVENUE COLONY, VIJAYAWADA A.P 520002

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, O/O TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT USHODAYA JUNCTION, SECTOR-8, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P.530017

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O/O TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PARVATHIPURAM, VIZAYANAGARAM DIST (OLD). PARVATIPURAM MANYAM DIST (NEW). A.P. 535501

¶17

THE ASSISTANT PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, VIZAYANAGARAM

¶18

2

¶19

DIST, A.P. 535002

¶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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Further Security Deposit (FSD) amounts aggregating to Rs.8,96,206/- payable to the petitioner under Agreement No.6/2019-20 dated 27.05.2019, entered into for construction of Workshops, Multipurpose Hall, Class Rooms, provision of Internal CC Roads and repairs to Government RITI, Bhadragiri Village, G.L. Puram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, despite completion of the work, expiry of the defect liability period and repeated representations, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to release the said EMD and FSD amounts of Rs.8,96,206/- together with interest at 6PERCENT per annum from the date they became due till the date of realization, 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 pleased to direct the respondents to release the EMD and FSD amounts aggregating to Rs.8,96,206/- payable to the petitioner under Agreement No.6/2019-20 dated 27.05.2019, together with applicable interest, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.RAYUDU SUDHA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶28

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

ORDER:-

¶32

Heard Ms. Rayudu Sudha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 6 and learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing for the respondentNos.2 and 7.

¶33

The present writ petition is filed challenging the inaction of the respondents in refunding the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Further Security Deposit (FSD) amounts of Rs.8,96,206/- deposited by the petitioner at the time of entering into agreement with the respondents for execution of the contract awarded in its favour.

¶34

It is contended that the petitioner was awarded the civil contract for providing infrastructural facilities at Government RITI College, Bhadragiri Village of G.L.Puram Mandal in Vizayanagaram District. It is argued that the works entrusted were executed and the amounts due, pursuant to the execution of the contract, were remitted, yet the EMD which is refundable deposit has not been refunded.

¶35

Having regard to the same, as the said sum of Rs.8,96,206/- is stated to have been refundable to the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to verify and remit the said sum of Rs.8,96,206/-, if the same is due to the petitioner,within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶36

4

¶37