ORDER :

Battu Devanand, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed seeking to issue an appropriate order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying an amount of Rs. 8,34,391/- (Rupees Eight lakh thirty four thousand three hundred and ninety one only) in respect of work relating to SDF-2016-17-Tadepalligudem Assembly Constituency-providing C.C. Road and RCC culvert from K.N. Road to Secessions Court premises in Tadepalligudem basing on Memo No. PLG01-PLG0FUNDS(SDF)/43/2019, dated 09.07.2019 of the Special Secretary, Planning (VI) Department, Government of A.P., and consequential Proc. No. E-1732191/DYSO-II/SDF/2019, dated 16.07.2019 and Lr. No. E-1732191/DYSO-II/SDF/2019, dated 26.07.2020 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, irregular, ultra vires, arbitrary, highhanded mala fide and against to the principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 8,34,391/- (Rupees Eight lakh thirty four thousand three hundred and ninety one only) alongwith 18% interest from the date of rejection of the bill to till the date of realization forthwith.

2. Heard Sri B. Jaya Prabhakara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning for respondent Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondent Nos. 2 and 4, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No. 3 and Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 8 and perused the material available on record.

3. Inspite of service of notice to the respondents by Order dated 21.10.2020, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents till date. As per Rule 12(i)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Writ Proceedings, 1977, every respondent in every writ petition intending to enter appearance and oppose any writ petition on which notice is issued by the High Court, shall enter appearance and file a counter-affidavit in opposition as soon as may be and in any event not later than 120 days from the date of service of notice in the writ petition. But, in the present writ petition, no counter-affidavit has been filed by following Rule 12 of the writ rules, and accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, not filing of the counter-affidavit by the respondents demonstrates that the respondents are not intending to oppose the writ petition.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been doing Government Contract works for the last 18 years. Respondent No. 4 called for open Tenders through e-procurement Tender Notice No. 969/SDF/TPG/TS ATO/2018, dated 13.11.2018 in respect of work "SDF 2016-17-Tadepalligudem Assembly Constituency-providing CC Road and RCC culvert from K.N. Road to Secessions Court premises in Tadepalligudem". The work was estimated by the authorities for an amount of Rs. 8,19,785/-. The petitioner participated and fulfilled all the conditions with regard to e-Tender in A.P. e-procurement tender Government website on 27.11.2018 and became the successful bidder to an amount of Rs. 7,15,754.28.

5. Respondent No. 4 issued a Letter No. 969/SDF/TS ATO/2018/674M, dated 09.12.2020 informing the petitioner that the tender is accepted to an amount of Rs. 7,15,754.28. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into Agreement No. 69/2018-19, dated 24.01.2019 with respondent No. 4 in the name of his Excellency the Governor of Andhra Pradesh and the said work has been completed in accordance with the prescribed specifications and after taking into consideration all the authorized additions and alterations, the value of work done upto date conformable with the terms of the agreement within stipulated period.

6. The said work was accepted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Public Health and Municipal Administration, Quality Control Division, Visakhap