Manojavam Construction LLP Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

MANOJAVAM C O NSTRUCTION LLP, D.NO. 06, GONDIPALLI, NANDIMANDLAM A , YSR DISTRICT, REP BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER, TAMIDALA MANOHAR REDDY, S/O KOTI REDDY, AGED. 43 YEA R S,OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O D.NO. 2-14, GONDIPALLE, CUDDAPAH-516218.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUILDINGS D EPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR D ISTRICT.

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO G OVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARA V ATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIR M AN, PADA, PULIVENDULA YS R DISTRICT, KADAPA.

¶15

THE SUPERINTE N DING ENGINEER, ROADS AN D BUILDINGS, KADAPA, YSR KA D APA (ERSTWHILE KADAPA) DIST R ICT,

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DIVISION, PULIVENDULA, YSR KADAPA (ERSTWHILE KADAPA) DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment an amount of Rs.31,67,630.36/- even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e, Procurement of Furniture, Wireless sound systemfor newly constructed Sabha Bhavanat Vempalli in YSR District. ,vide allotted to the Token Bill No.2024-173123, (old token bill No.2023-2611340) in vide agreement No. 1000393959/2023-24, Dated. 27-01-2024,as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payments of Rs.31,67,630.36/- with interest @12 percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

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 direct the respondents to consider for payment of final Bill amounts Rs.31,67,630.36/- with interest @12 percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of works i.e.,Procurement of Furniture, Wireless sound systemfor newly constructed Sabha Bhavanat Vempalli in YSR District.,vide allotted to the Token Bill No.2024-173123, (old token bill No.2023-2611340) in vide agreement No. 1000393959/2023-24, Dated. 27-01-2024,pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent authorities in withholding the payment of the amount to the tune of Rs.31,67,630/- even after finalizing the bills in relation to the work i.e. “Procurement of Furniture, Wireless sound system for newly constructed Sabha Bhavant Vempalli in YSR District”.

¶27

Heard Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri C.Praveen, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings.

¶28

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on counter, submitted that

¶29

the authorities have admitted the balance net amount due to the petitioner at Rs. 31,67,630/- and sought four (04) months time for payment of the balance amount due.

¶30

Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for petitioner, reported no objection for granting time as sought for by the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶31

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the authorities concerned to pay to the petitioner the amount of Rs.31,67,630/- to

¶32

the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate not later than four (04) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order

¶33

as to costs.

¶34

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶36

3^rd July, 2026 RR Whether the order is :   Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No   Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

Manojavam Construction LLP v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manojavam Construction LLP v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Deepa Vs T.S. Chetan

P Sai Prasad Vs the Union of India

Vagdevi Educational Society, Vs The Union of India

M/S M P R Constructions Vs the State of Ap

Ramamurthi Kodavali alias Rama Murthy Chetty Vs The Union of India

A v Mohan Reddy Vs the State of Ap