Vallepu Kotamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vallepu Kotamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of the EMD and FSD by Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 within one week; Writ Petitions allowed with no order as to costs; interlocutory applications, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 (Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation and its Municipal Engineer) must release the EMD and FSD deposited by the petitioner's late husband for contract works completed long ago.

Court's answer

Directed Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to release the EMD and FSD within a period of one week.

Ratio / Principle

It is settled law that the Respondents cannot plead paucity of funds when it comes to return of the EMD and FSD deposits.

Key takeaways

Any further delay by Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in releasing the deposits would be viewed seriously by this Court.obiter¶50
Counsel for the Corporation was directed to convey the gist of the Order to Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 forthwith for effective compliance.obiter¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction) — Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J — Oral Common Order, 06.04.2026 — W.P. Nos. 8883 & 8884 of 2026 — Vallepu Kotamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others — Release of EMD and FSD of a deceased contractor. The petitioner's late husband undertook contract works for Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation commencing June 2018, completed long ago; his EMD and FSD remained withheld by Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Held: it is settled law that respondents cannot plead paucity of funds when it comes to return of EMD and FSD deposits, relying on Surya Constructions v. State of U.P., (2019) 16 SCC 794 (Paras 2-4); S.C. Meena v. Amit Tanwar, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8035 (Para 48); Kashmir Wood Products v. Verinag Development Authority, 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 814 (Para 8); and Kattam Reddy Venkateswarlu Reddy v. State of A.P., Order dated 23.01.2026 in W.P.No.34418 of 2025 (APHC). Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were directed to release the EMD and FSD within one week, with a warning that further delay would be viewed seriously. Writ petitions allowed; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed.

1

APHC010170892026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3328]

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA

PRASAD

WRIT PETITION Nos: 8883& 8884 of 2026

W.P.No.8883 of 2026:

Between:

VALLEPU KOTAMMA, W/O. SEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.8-29-361, GANESH NAGAR, AGATHAVARAPPADU, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE 522509.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE 522238.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE 522238.

THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE 522503.

THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE 522503.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

2

1.MODAPOTHULA SUMALATHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

W.P.No.8884 of 2026:

Between:

VALLEPU KOTAMMA, , W/O. SEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.8-29-361, GANESH NAGAR, AGATHAVARAPPADU, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE. 522509.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE 522238.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE. 522238.

THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE.522503

THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, . MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE. 522503.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.MODAPOTHULA SUMALATHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

3

The Court made the following:

ORAL COMMON ORDER:

Heard Ms. Devasri Roshan Kancharla, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Ms. D. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning and S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation.

S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Commissioner, Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation dated 04.04.2026. Copy of it is supplied to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record.

From the record, it appears that the works have commenced in the month of June, 2018 and the husband of the Writ Petitioner, who had undertaken contract works, had completed the same long time ago. Since he is no more, wife of the Contractor has filed the present Writ Petitions seeking release of EMD & FSD. Since the amounts deposited by the husband of the Writ Petitioner had been withheld by the Respondents since long time, there shall be a direction to the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 to release the EMD and FSD within a period of one week from today. It is a settled law that the Respondents cannot plead paucity of funds when it comes to return of the EMD and FSD deposits. (Please see (1) Surya Constructions vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others : (2019) 16 SCC 794 - Para Nos.2, 3 & 4, (2) Mr. S.C. Meena, EE (Project Narela) vs. Amit Tanwar : 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8035 - Para No.48, (3) Kashmir Wood Products vs Verinag Development Authority and Others : 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 814 - Para No.8, (4) Kattam Reddy Venkateswarlu Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

4

Principal Secretary, Municipalities and Urban Development Department

and three others : Order dated 23.01.2026 in W.P.No.34418 of 2025 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh)

Since the amount deposited by the Writ Petitioner had been withheld by the Corporation for a long time, any further delay on the part of the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 would be viewed seriously by this Court.

S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, is directed to convey the gist of this Order to Respondent Nos.3 & 4 forthwith for effective compliance.

With these observations and directions, these Writ Petitions standallowed. No order as to costs.

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Dt :06.04.2026

Note : Issue C.C today, B/o, Vns