Disposed

M/s. Konaseema Infra Projects v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Jul 2025WP/20388/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor sought release of an admitted bill for part-completed BT renewal road works in Karimnagar District. The State cited dearth of funds and sought six weeks; the court directed release within four weeks via the existing token.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release Rs.36,67,324/- under token No.2600569837 dated 19.06.2025 within four weeks; no costs.

M/s. Konaseema Infra Projects Vs The State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^3302I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE TATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDER (Special Original J risdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTE NTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AN TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESEN

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI J STICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 0388 0F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Konaseema lnfra Projects, Re by its Managing Partner, I\Iallidi Satyanarayana Reddy S/o Ammi R ddy, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Business, No. 8-2-31 1 lCl2iB, Road No 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana,, Represent by i Special Chief Secretary to Government, Finance and Planning De artment, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The State ofTelangana, Represent by Principal Secretary to Government, Finance and Planning Department, Sec tariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The State ofTelangana, Represent by i Additional Secretary to Government, Finance and Planning De artment, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

Pay and Accounts officer, Karim Nagar istrict Treasury Karimnagar District.

¶15

The State ofTelangana, Represent by Principal Secretary to Govemment, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development partment, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶16

The Superintending Engineer, P.R.Regi n, Karimnagar District0

¶17

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Con titution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order r Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, challenging he action of the Respondents No. I to 4 in not releasing the admitted amounts r part completion of work i.e., "BT Renewal Pacakage-V in Karminagar District R/F TO1 to Thatipally, Gangadhar Mandal, Karimnagar District", executed by P itioner, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 t release the pending bills i.e., for the BT Renewal Pacakage-V in Karminagar Distri t RYF TO1 to Thatipally, Gangadhar Mandal, Karimnagar District for net amount f Rs.36,67,324l- (Thirty Six Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Four Only) vide Token No.2600569837 dated 1 9.06.2025., forthwith the Petitioner account

¶19

lA NO:¹ OF²⁰²⁵

¶20

petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct} the Resoondents^{No. 1 to 4 to release the pending bill i.e., BT Renewal Package-} V in Karminagar^{DistrictRyF T01 to Thatipally, Gangadhar Mandal,Karimnagar} District for nei^{amount of Rs.36,67,324l- (Thirty Six LakhsSixty Seven Thousand} Three Hundred^{Twenty Four Only) videTokenNo.2600569837dated19.06.2025,} forthwith to the^{Petitioner Account}

¶21

Counsel for^{the Petitioner: SRI'K' RAJASHEKAR}

¶22

Counsel for^{the RespondentNos.1 to 4: AGP FOR FINANCEPLANNING}

¶23

counsel for^{the RespondentNos.5&6: GP FORPANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL} DEVELOPMENT

¶24

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶25

STICE K.SARATH THE HONOURABLE^SRI

¶26

WRIT PETITIo^{N No.O388 of 2O25}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

With the consent of both^{theparties, this Writ Petitionis} taken up for disposal at the admiss^{on stage itself.}

¶29

under Article 226 of the 2. This Writ Petition^{is f,ile}

¶30

Constitution of India seeking the^{lolowing reliel}

¶31

Order or Direction^more ". ..to issue an approPriate^Writ of Wit of Mandamus Particularlg^{one inthe nature} challenging the action of^{the R} es ondents No 1 to 4 in^not r part completion of work i releasing the admitted amounts nagar Distict R/ F TOl to e BT Renetual PacakageV^{in Ka} mnagar District executed Thatip altg Gangadhar Mandal by Petitioner as illegaL and^arbit and consequentlg direct pending bills i e for the the Respondents 1 to 4 to^release agar Distict R/F TO1 to BT Renetual PacakageV in^Karmi Thatipatlg Gangad.har Mandal^K rimnagar Di.stict for net omount of Rs.36,67,324/'^{(RuPes ThirtgSix LakhsSixtg} Seuen Thousancl Three^Hundre Tutentg Four Onlg) uid.e Token No.2600569837 dated¹⁹ 06.2025 forthutith to the Petitioner account an.d Pass..^."

¶32

iearned counsel for the 3. Heard Sri K. Rajashek

¶33

Pleader for Finance and petitioner, learned Government Planning for respondent Nos. 1 to 4^{and learnedGovernment} Pleader for Panchayat RAi an Rural Development for fuspondent Nos.S and 6 \

¶34

+. Learned^{counsel for the petitioner submits that} respondent^{No.3 has cal1ed for tenders lor execution of works} for construction^{of roads in KarimnagarDistrict'Pursuantto} the same,^{the petitioner-Company participated in the tencier} process arid^{became successfulin tenders for executingthe} works. Consequently,^{respondent Irlo'6 entered into agreement'} dated 27.O5.2023,^{with the petitioner and issued u'ork order in} favour of the^{petitioner'In compliancewitlr thc samc' the} petitioner has executed^{the contract and completed part work'} Being satisfied^{with the compietion of part u'ork' the oflice of} respondent^{No.6 had issued token No'2600569837dated} 19.06.2025foranamountofRs'36,67,3241(RupeesThirtySix Lakhs Sixty-Seven^{ThousandThree Hundred and Twenty-} Four only) for^{the part work i'e', R/F TO1 to Thatipally'} Galgadhar^{Mandal, Karimnagar District was generated'} However, the^{said amounts were not released to the petitioner} so far. Therefore,^{learned counselprays this Court to direct the} respondents to^{release theaforesaidamounts withina} stipulated period o[ time. / \ / \

¶35

¶36

¶37

Learned Government p ader for the respondents submits that the bilis pertaini g to the Payment of the petltioner-Company are already rocessed, however, due to dearth of funds, the amounts could not be released on time and prays this Court to grant six (06) w eks time to release the said amounts.

¶38

6 Having regard to the sub ssions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, s Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to relea e the amounts/payment to the petitioner-Company in pursuanc of token No.2600569837 dated 19.06.2025, as expeditiousl as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks om the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if an pending in this Writ Petition, shalt stand ciosed. There sh be no order as to costs.

¶40

SD/.S. ALLIKARJUN A RAO AS ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶41

//TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

¶42

1 The Sp C a ch ,f S Creta ry o GoVErnm n

¶43

2 TDheepaPrtm n t Se reta ftat Hyd ta bad nance and planning Se re nnanac t,paHyderabS ecretaaryd to G o ern m nt, F na n and Planning Department,

¶44

1. Th Add tio na I Secre t Secre a flat H Vd ra badry^o oVE m m nt F n ce and planning Department,

To,

4 Pay and Accounts officer, Karim Nagar District Treasury Karimnagar District 5 The Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶49

6 The Superintending Engineer, P.R.Region, Karimnagar District0 7 One CC to SRl. K. RAJASHEKAR Advocate IOPUCI

¶50

B One CC to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT loPUCl

¶51

Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶52

10 Two CD Copies KKS

¶53

BS M/

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 610712025

H E
( o f{ 6
,l.
a
J
o (l('
O 11AUE rus D
a
+
-1
f)* _,ar
I

¶58

ORDER

¶59

WP.No.20388 of 2025

¶60

DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

<br>q B tD

M/s. Konaseema Infra Projects v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Konaseema Infra Projects v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Chandra Prakash, Vs State of Telangana

Masagani Raghu Ramaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Teijeen Jaysree Vs The State of Telangana

K.Sudarshan Reddy, Vs State of Telangana

Maidam Narayana Vs The State of Telangana

Akula Panduranga Rao Vs The State of Telangana