M/s. Sundeep Ravindra Engineers and Contractors Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. SUNDEEP RAVINDRA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, PLOT NO. 16, SRI KRISHNA NAGAR, DCCB COLONY EXTENSION, SRIKAKULAM. REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K RAVINDRA REDDY.

¶10

K.RAVINDRA REDDY,, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. PLOT NO. 16, SRI KRISHNA NAGAR, DCCB COLONY EXTENSION, SRIKAKULAM.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ROADS AND BUILDINGS (RAND B) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER R AND B NH AND CRF, NEW RAND B BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, OPP INDIRA GANDHI MUNICIPAL STADIUM, VIJAYAWADA.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RAND B CIRCLE, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B DIVISION, PARVATHIPURAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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

¶20

2

¶21

tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments for the works i.e.. Periodic Maintenance to Chilakapalem-Ramabha drapuram- Rayagada road (SH.36) from km. 106/0 to 108/4 in Vizianagaram District for an amount of Rs.40,83,712/-towards Second and Final Bill as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release Rs.40,83,712/- towards Second and Final Bill forthwith for the above said works executed by the petitioner and pass such

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 t may be pleased to consider for payment of amount of Rs.40,83,7121- towards Second and Final Bill for the pending bills for the works executed by the petitioner i.e., Periodic Maintenance to Chilakapalem-Ramabhadrapuram-Rayagada road (SH.36) from km. 106/0 to 108/4 in Vizianagaram District for an amount of Rs.40,83,712/- towards Second and Final Bill forthwith, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass such

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶25

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 May be pleased to grant Leave for filing of the Counter Affidavit in WP.No. 18838 of 2024 and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶27

1.K NARSI REDDY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶30

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

3

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.18838 OF 2024

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶36

“… to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments for the works i.e.,Periodic Maintenance to ChilakapalemRamabhadrapuram-Rayagada road (SH.36) from km.106/0 to 108/4 in Vizianagaram District for an amount of Rs.40,83,712/- towards Second and Final Bill as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release Rs.40,83,712/- towards Second and Final Bill forthwith for the above said works executed by the petitioner and pass such other order or orders…”

¶37

Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents.

¶38

The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments for the works executed by the petitioner i.e., Periodic Maintenance to Chilakapalem-RamabhadrapuramRayagada Road (SH.36) from km.106/0 to 108/4 in Vizianagaram District, for an amount of Rs.40,83,712/- towards Second and Final Bill.

¶39

Learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings filed counteraffidavit asserting that the 2^nd & final bill for gross amount of Rs.40,83,712/and net amount of Rs.34,09,198/- was recorded in M.Book Page No: 70 and M.Book No:1842A and the bill was uploaded after statutory deductions.

¶40

4

¶41

Insofar as the interest component, the respondents contended that the petitioner should approach the appropriate forum, relying on the order of the Division Bench in W.A.791 of 2022 dated 26.04.2022. The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s order, directing the petitioner to seek relief regarding interest from the appropriate forum. In a catena of cases this Court had held that where dispute revolves round questions of fact, the matter ought not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶42

In the present case, the respondents have not disputed the payment due to the petitioner for the work executed and the respondents have manifested in their counter-affidavit that they will pay the amount to the petitioner and they are unable to the pay due to “bill was pending with the Division office for want of Budget”, once the work executed by the petitioner to the respondents is admitted and the payment due to the petitioner is not disputed by the respondents, there was hardly no need for this Court to refer the matter to any forum or for arbitration for passing an arbitral award assuming that any condition in the agreement to that extent. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to pay the admitted amount to the petitioner.

¶43

In The D.F.O., South Kheri And Ors. vs Ram Sanehi Singh¹ , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when a State decides not to pay the dues with mala fide, with ulterior motives or arbitrarily or when the State avoids payment of the dues with mala fide, with ulterior motives, arbitrarily or when the State

¶44

1 (1971) 3 SCC 864

¶45

5

¶46

discriminates, while making payment dues, such a decision of the State not to pay or such an act of the State of not paying its dues cannot be said to be wholly beyond the reach of Article 226, for asking the writ Court to do is to force the State to act in accordance with its constitutional obligation by adhering to the letter and spirit of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶47

In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions:

¶48

(a) The respondents are directed to clear the due amount to the petitioner within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

(b) Sum due to the petitioner would mean, the sum arrived after statutory deductions. If there is any dispute regarding statutory recoveries, the petitioner is at liberty to communicate/interface with the respondents.

¶50

(c) With regard to interest, the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate forum.

¶51

(d) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶53

Date: 04.02.2026

¶54

KBN

¶55

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO