Vigneswara Constructions Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

VIGNESWARA CONSTRUCTIONS, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, V SURESH REDDY, S/O V RAMAMJANEYA REDDY AGED 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.25/27, SANJEEVA NAGAR, NANDYALA, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ROADS AND BUILDING , SECRETARIAT BUILDING,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERR AND B, . ROADS AND BUILDINGS DIVISION, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶14

THE CHIEF ENGINEERR AND B, SH,MD, AND APRDC ,VIJAYAWADA.

¶15

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

¶16

...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 Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the Final payments of Rs.1,27,38,267/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Seven Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand two Hundred and Sixty Seven only) to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e.. Reconstruction of bridge at K.M.0/6 Of

¶18

2

¶19

nannoor-Chinna tekur - nagalapuram -gudur -C.Belagal- Yemmiganur road in Kurnool district, Agreement No.103/2020-21, dt 05.01.2021, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust and against the Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the amounts of Rs. 1,27,38,267/- ( Rupees One Crore Twenty Seven Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand two Hundred and Sixty Seven only) with interest @ 24 percent per annum for the delayed amount till date of realization for the works executed by the petitioner.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶24

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

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

¶29

"……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 withholding the Final payments of Rs.1,27,38,267/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Seven Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand two Hundred and Sixty Seven only) to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e.. Reconstruction of bridge at K.M.0/6 of nannoor-Chinna tekurnagalapuram-gudur -C. Belagal-Yemmiganur road in Kurnool district, Agreement No.103/2020-21, dt 05.01.2021, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust and against the Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the amounts of Rs.1,27,38,267/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Seven Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand two Hundred and Sixty Seven only) with interest @ 24 percent per annum for the delayed amount till date of realization for the works executed by the petitioner and be pleased and pass such other orders……"

¶30

The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in withholding the final payment of Rs.1,27,38,267/- to the petitioner in relation to the works, i.e., “Reconstruction of bridge at K.M.0/6 of Nannoor-Chinna Tekur-Nagalapuram-Gudur-C.BelagalYemmiganur road in Kurnool District, Agreement No.103/2020-21, dated 05.01.2021”. It is further stated that the 2^nd respondent has recorded the completion of the work in the Measurement Books. Despite the same, the respondents have not paid the amounts for the work executed by the petitioner. Further prayed to direct the respondents to pay interest at 12% per annum.

¶31

4

¶32

2^nd respondent-Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Kurnool, has filed counter and admitted the execution of the work and recorded the same in the Measurement Books. It is further stated that the bill was uploaded in CFMS portal, vide Bill No.2023-366291 dated 20.01.2024 for an amount of Rs.1,27,18,677/- after deducting the statutory recoveries of Rs.9,63,681/-.

¶33

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 that they will pay the amount to the petitioner soon after clearance of the funds. 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.

¶34

In The D.F.O., Sough Kheri And Ors. Vs. Ram Sanehi Singh reported in (1971) 3 SCC 864, 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 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 of the Constitution of India, for asking the writ Court to do is to force the State to act in accordance with its

¶35

5

¶36

constitutional obligation by adhering to the letter and spirit of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

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

¶38

(a) The respondents are directed to clear the due amount to the petitioner within a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

(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/interfere with the respondents.

¶40