Sri Seshachala Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

SRI SESHACHALA CONSTRUCTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, N. SIDDESWARA REDDY, D.NO.6-11-98, MCR COLONY, TIRUPATHI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR.517002 4

¶17

THE CHITTOOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS , COMMISSIONER, CHITTOOR CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517001

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHITTOOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CHITTOOR.517001

¶19

2

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 for declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the final bill amount of Rs. 10,41,472/- to the petitioner in pursuance of the agreement entered into with the 4TH respondent vide Agreement No. 228/2022-23 dated 19.12.2022, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to release the total final bill amount of Rs. 10,41,472/- to the petitioner forthwith and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 pleased to direct the respondents to release the total final bill amount of Rs. 10,41,472/- to the petitioner forthwith for the work executed by it in pursuance of the Agreement No. 228/2022-23 dated 19.12.2022 entered into with the 4TH respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pas

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.RAMESH BABU TALLURI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In

¶28

2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶29

3.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

3

¶32

Order:-

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entrusted with the work of Laying of CC Road from D.No.2-502 to 2-504, 2-503 to 2-505, from 2-492 to 2-497, 2-488/2 in Achari Street, Division-07, Chittoor Municipal Corporation.

¶34

It is submitted that the petitioner had completed the work entrusted to him and that the competent authority of the respondents had also approved the payments due and payable to the petitioner. The respondents have also recorded the progress of the work and the amounts due and payable to the petitioner in the M-Book.

¶35

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Sri P. Vengala Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning.

¶36

During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the work has been completed and that the petitioner has also submitted the final bills and the amounts due and payable to the petitioner have been duly admitted. It is submitted that further funds are awaited and that, soon after the release of the funds, the bills due and payable to the petitioner shall be cleared.

¶37

4

¶38

Recording the submissions, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the respondents to verify and release the payments due and payable to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶39

order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

____________________

¶42

JUSTICE HARINATH.N 08.07.2026 PNS

¶43

Whether the order is:

¶44

Speaking	Reasoned	`☑`
Reportable	Non-reportable	`☑`

Sri Seshachala Constructions v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Seshachala Constructions 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

G R K Constructions Vs the State of Ap

P Krishna Reddy, Vs The Municipal Commissioner

M/S Sri Svr Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradseh

Vunnam Janardhan Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.v.Satyanarayana Reddy S/o M.Subba Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh represented by

Smt Nollu Lakshmi Kumari W/o Late Rama Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by