M/s Thirumala Constructions Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S THIRUMALA CONSTRUCTIONS, D.NO 1-430 DWARAKA NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU TOWN AND DISTRICT REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER A. SOMI REDDY S/O A. OBI REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC CONTRACTOR D.NO 1-430, DWARAKA NAGAR ANANTHAPURAM TOWN AND DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, (R AND B) CIRCLE, ANANTAPURAMU.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (R AND B) DIVISION, KALYANDURGAM ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B) DIVISION, KALYANDURGAM ANANTAPUR 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction and delay on the part of the Respondents in releasing the second and final bill of Rs27,08,594/- for the work undertaken under C.R. Agreement dated 09.12.2020 for Strengthening of Primary Health Centre at

¶19

2

¶20

Muddinayanipalli(V), Kalyandurgam(M) in Anantapuramu District, as arbitrary illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to pay the second and final bill of Rs27,08,594/- for the work undertaken under C.R. Agreement dated 09.12.2020 to the petitioner.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.P SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶25

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

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

¶30

"……to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction and delay on the part of the Respondents in releasing the second and final bill of Rs.27,08,594/- for the work undertaken under C.R. Agreement dated 09.12.2020 for Strengthening of Primary Health Centre at Muddinayanipalli(V), Kalyandurgam(M) in Anantapuramu District, as arbitrary illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to pay the second and final bill of Rs.27,08,594/- for the work undertaken under C.R. Agreement dated 09.12.2020 to the petitioner and pass such other orders……"

¶31

The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not releasing the second and final bill amount of Rs.27,08,594/- for the work undertaken under C.R.Agreement dated 09.12.2020 for strengthening of Primary Health Centre at Muddinayanipalli village, Kalyandurgam Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. It is narrated in the writ affidavit that the petitioner is the successful bidder for the above work and consequent thereto, the 3^rd respondent entered into a formal agreement dated 09.12.2020 in respect of the aforesaid work and the petitioner has completed the said work and the 3^rd respondent recorded due entries in the Measurement Book and the second and final bill amount of Rs.27,08,594/- stands admitted by the respondents themselves. Despite the said bill is being prepared, the respondents have not been released the said amount. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the

¶32

4

¶33

respondents to pay the amount of Rs.27,08,594/- to the works executed by the petitioner.

¶34

The 4^th respondent-Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Kalyandurgam, Anantapur District has filed counter and admitted the execution of the work and stated that the petitioner is entitled to net amount of Rs.27,08,594/- after deducting the statutory charges of Rs.3,58,472/- and the bill was uploaded in CFMS Portal, vide ID No.2023-1485699 and the same was approved by the Pay and Accounts Officer, Ananthapuramu on 13.10.2023 and the bill was migrated in the year 2024 and due to the year end, the bill was waiting for fund clearance.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

5

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(a) The respondents are directed to clear the due amount to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

(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.

¶42