IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SUJATHA, J.
Mutyala Maha Lakshmana Rao S/o M. Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 23309 of 2025
Decided On : 24-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. non-payment of contractual dues (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on entitlement and budget delay (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. precedents on non-payment issues (Para 4) |
| 4. court directive on payment timetable (Para 7) |
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“…to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents not releasing the amount of Rs.10,80,663/- vide M Book No. 5749 DG, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., O and M to Removal of Weed Growth Pala Codu Medium & its Infalling Minor Drains (in weed free condition) for the year 2023-24, vide Agreement No. 10/2023-24, dated 20.07.2023 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay for payment of amounts of Rs.10,80,663/- vide M Book No. 5749 DG with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith and pass such other order or orders….”
2. The petitioner had been awarded the contract of work i.e., O and M to Removal of Weed Growth Pala Codu Medium & its Infalling Minor Drains (in weed free condition) for the year 2023-24, vide Agreement No. 10/2023-24, dated 20.07.2023. After execution of the aforementioned contract works, the respondents issued quality control certificate dated 11.12.2024 for a sum of Rs.14,75,885.40/-. As the payment of the said amounts has not been made by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that even though the respondents admitted that the petitioner is entitled for payment of the aforesaid sum of amount, no payment is being made. The petitioner contends that such non- payment of money is clearly arbitrary and high-handed requiring the interference of this Court.
4. This Court, in various orders, including the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch had taken the view that such non-payment of dues is arbitrary and that such dues need to be cleared by the respondents at the earliest.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on oral instructions, submits that the admitted amounts payable to the petitioner as per the quality control certificate dated 11.12.2024 for a sum of Rs.14,75,885.40/-. He further submits that since the budget was not released by the Government, the bills were not paid to the petitioner. Soon after release of the budget by the Government, the bills will be paid to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner agreed for payment of final bill as per the quality control certificates as stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances submitted in the affidavit, and the directions of this Court in various cases and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the amounts to the petitioner in accordance with the quality control certificate dated 11.12.2024 for a sum of Rs.14,75,885.40/- issued by the respondents, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As far as interest component is concerned, if there is any subsisting clause in the agreement/work order envisaging payment of interest upon any amount which is due and payable, the same is binding upon both the parties.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.