Allowed

Nas Babu Constructions Pvt.Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026WP/20569/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner construction company executed 11 works under the Neeru Chettu Programme and completed them satisfactorily. The respondent authorities admitted the petitioner's entitlement to refund of EMD and 7.5% withheld amounts totalling Rs.7,52,866/- but had not released the amounts citing budget and technical issues. The High Court held that non-payment of admitted dues is arbitrary and a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable, relying on Supreme Court precedent. The court directed the respondents to pay the admitted amounts within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to pay the admitted EMD and 7.5% withheld amounts totalling Rs.7,52,866/- to the petitioner within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

Nas Babu Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010353292026

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶4

[3327]

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 20569/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

NAS BABU CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD.,, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.V.V. NAGENDRAM, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, R/O. D.NO.10-150-A2, 1ST LANE, RAJENDRA NAGAR GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 301.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

A N D

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-522 238.

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI522 238.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE DIVISION, GUDIVADA-521 301.

¶15

THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KRISHNA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 456.

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DRAINAGE DIVISION, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 301. ...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 an appropriate writ or order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents, in not releasing the EMD and 7.5percent withheld amount of Rs.7,52,866/- (Rs.3,14,888/- plus Rs.4,37,978/-), which were deducted by the respondents, in their respective bills of 11 works at the time of releasing of bill payments

¶18

SRK, J W.P.No.20569 of 2026

¶19

¶20

towards execution of works under Neeru Chettu Programme vide 1) Agt. No. 147 NC/2017-18, Dated 06.07.2017, 2) Agt. No.148 NC/2017-18, Dated 06.07.2017, 3) Agt. No.149 NC/2017-18, Dated 06.07.2017, 4) Agt. No.150 NC/2017-18, Dated 06.07.2017, 5) Agt. No.151 NC/2017-18, Dated 06.07.2017, 6) Agt. No.152 NC/2017-18, Dated 06.07.2017, 7) Agt. No. 153 NC/2017-18 06.07.2017, 8) Agt. No.192 NC/2017-18, Dated 19.09.2017, 9) Agt. No.193 NC/2017-18, Dated 19.09.2017, 10) Agt. No. 194 NC/2017-18 Dated Dated 19.09.2017 and 11) Agt. No.270 NC/2017-18, Dated 24.03.2018, respectively, in Drainage Division, Gudivada, Krishna District, which is illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of the principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents to release the EMD and 7.5percent withheld amount of Rs.7,52,866/-, due to the petitioner in respect of execution of 10 works forthwith interest of 18percent and to pass such

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 release the withheld amount of Rs.7,52,866/- in respect of execution 11 works, which were deducted by the respondents as EMD and 7.5% withheld amounts in their respective bills at the time of releasing of bill payments towards execution of works and pass such

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.BATTULA SANJAIAH GANDHI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV

¶27

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

SRK, J W.P.No.20569 of 2026

¶30

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Irrigation and Command Area Development, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning.

¶33

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶34

“….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 EMD and 7.5% withheld amount of Rs.7,52,866/(Rs.3,14,888/- + Rs.4,37,978/-), which were deducted by the respondents in their respective bills of 11 works at the time of releasing of bill payments towards execution of works under Neeru Chettu Programme vide (1) Agt. No.147 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (2) Agt. No.148 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (3) Agt.No.148 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (4) Agt.No.150 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (5) Agt.No.151 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (6) Agt.No.152 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (7) Agt.No.153 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (8) Agt.No.192 NC/2017-18, dated 19.09.2017; (9) Agt.No.193 NC/2017-18, dated 19.09.2017, (10) Agt.No. 194 NC/2017-18, dated 19.09.2017, and (11) Agt.No.270 NC/2017-18, dated 24.03.2018, respectively, in Drainage Division, Gudivada, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondents to release the EMD and 7.5% withheld amount of Rs.7,52,866/- due to the petitioner in respect of execution of 11 works forthwith interest at 18% and to pass such other order or orders…”

¶35

3. The petitioner company claims to undertake Civil Contract works. The District Collector entrusted the works vide (1)

¶36

SRK, J W.P.No.20569 of 2026

¶37

¶38

Agt. No.147 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (2) Agt. No.148 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (3) Agt.No.148 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (4) Agt.No.150 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (5) Agt.No.151 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (6) Agt.No.152 NC/201718, dated 06.07.2017; (7) Agt.No.153 NC/2017-18, dated 06.07.2017; (8) Agt.No.192 NC/2017-18, dated 19.09.2017; (9) Agt.No.193 NC/2017-18, dated 19.09.2017, (10) Agt.No. 194 NC/2017-18, dated 19.09.2017, and (11) Agt.No.270 NC/2017-18, dated 24.03.2018, respectively, to the petitioner, under Neeru Chettu Programme, in Drainage Division, Gudivada, Krishna District, and the petitioner executed the aforesaid works successfully within the stipulated time, and the respondents made payment of bills to the petitioner; that at the time of releasing of bill amounts, the respondent authorities deducted the EMD and 7.5% withheld amounts with all statutory deductions; that the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 to release the said amounts, but they inclined to do so, even after completion of maintenance period.

¶39

(b) It is the grievance of the petitioner that, though the petitioner approached the respondent authorities on several occasions for release of EMD amounts and 7.5% withheld amount payable to the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid works, they did

¶40

SRK, J W.P.No.20569 of 2026

¶41

¶42

not do so. According to petitioner, having executed the works satisfactorily, at less than the estimated rates, within the prescribed time, non-release of the EMD and withheld amounts was arbitrary and unjustified. It was further contended that the delay in payment of the same is causing severe financial hardship, necessitating the filing of the present Writ Petition seeking appropriate directions for release of the outstanding amount.

¶43

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD, on written instructions received from the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Gudivada-3^rd respondent, submits that the petitioner executed the works allotted as per the agreements, and they made payments to the petitioner company. He further submits that the bills could not be uploaded due to lack of budget, and also due to technical issues at Sub-Division Level. The written instructions are placed on record.

¶44

A perusal of the written instructions goes to show that

¶45

there is no dispute with regard to execution of works and payment made by the respondent authorities in respect of the works executed by the petitioner company, and as per the respondents, they admitted that the petitioner is entitled for refund of EMD and 7.5% withheld

¶46

SRK, J W.P.No.20569 of 2026

¶47

¶48

amount as claimed by him. Therefore, since the amount payable to the petitioner, is admitted and undisputed, the Writ Petition is maintainable. In M/s. Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors.¹ , it was held as under: (Paragraph No.8)

¶49

“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. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia , may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a Writ Petition may lie. Further, throwing a Writ Petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”

¶50

A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the respondent authorities did not dispute about deposit of EMD amount by the petitioner company at the time of entrusting the works, and also there is no dispute with regard to statutory deductions made by the respondent authorities at the time of payment of bills for the works executed by the petitioner company. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though it executed the said works without any remarks

¶51

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1400.

¶52

SRK, J W.P.No.20569 of 2026

¶53

¶54

and payment was also made in respect of the works executed, the respondent authorities are not releasing the EMD deposited by the petitioner company and withheld amounts that were deducted by the respondent authorities during payment of bills. Therefore, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, since, the respondent No.3 admits that the petitioner is entitled to the amount as claimed, and since, it is stated that the bill amount would be processed soon after allocation of budget from the Government, the respondent authorities are directed to pay the EMD and withheld amounts as admitted by the respondent authorities to the petitioner company within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶55

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.

¶56

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶57

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶58

11^th September, 2026. DNB

Nas Babu Constructions Pvt.Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nas Babu Constructions Pvt.Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases