SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2014

APHC010458182024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23588/2024 Between:

Vattem Srinivasa Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities

3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is 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 in not paying the admitted due amounts of Rs.4,38,025/-, Rs.89,068/-, Rs.4,51,045/-, Rs.88,247/-, Rs.84,912/-, Rs.88,911/- respectively totaling Rs.12,40,208/- (Twelve lakh forty thousand two hundred eight) payable to petitioner for 06 works executed for 8th respondent by the petitioner, under agreement Bearing Nos.115/2023-24 (dated 20.07.2023), 133/2023- 24 (dated 17.08.2023), 257/2023-24 (dated 02.12.2023), 22/2024-25 (dated 18.04.2024), 25/2024-25 (dated 26.04.2024) and 26/2024-25 (dated 26.04. 2024) despite finalizing the bills, not generating CFMS ID so far, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents herein to immediately pay the total due amount of Rs.12,40,208/- (Twelve lakhs forty thousand two hundred eight) payable to petitioner in relation to the above 06 works executed for 8th respondent with an interest @ 12% per annum.….”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent Nos.1 and 4, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning for respondent Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Ms.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.8.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though respondents admitted that the petitioner is entitled for payment of the aforesaid sum of money, no payment is being made and such non-payment of money is clearly arbitrary and high-handed and thereby requires interference by this Court.

4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.8 furnished a copy of the instructions dated 17.12.2024, wherein it is stated the amounts payable to the petitioner are admitted bills. However, due to lack of funds, the bill amounts have not been uploaded in the CFMS portal.

5. In view of the above, since the bill amount claimed by the petitioner is an admitted amount, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to clear the bills to a tune of Rs.12,40,208/- (Rupees twelve lakhs forty thousand two hundred and eight only) payable to the petitioner, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.01.2025 KGR

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top