2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2219
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
MANOJAVAM CONSTRUCTION LLP – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WP 27297/2024
APHC010519822024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.27297 of 2024 Between:
1. MANOJAVAM CONSTRUCTION LLP, D.NO. 06, GONDIPALLI, NANDIMANDLAMA, YSR DISTRICT, REP BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER, TAMIDALA MANOHAR REDDY, S/O KOTI REDDY, AGED 43 YEARS,OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O D.NO. 2-14, GONDIPALLE, CUDDAPAH-516218.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, PADA, PULIVENDULA YSR DISTRICT, KADAPA.
4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA (ERSTWHILE KADAPA) DISTRICT, 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DIVISION, PULIVENDULA, YSR KADAPA (ERSTWHILE KADAPA) DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment an amount of Rs.6,027,981.94/- even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Procurement of Furniture and Ornamental GRC cladding to the newly constructed Inspection Bungalow at Vempalli in YSR District under the main work of Construction of CC Roads, Compound Wall and Furniture for Inspection Bungalow at Vempalli, YSR District., vide allotted to the Token Bill No.2024-173121, (old token bill No.2023-261651 5) in vide agreement No.1000401762/2023-24, Dated 03-02-2024,as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payments of Rs.3,826,696.88/- with interest @12 percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of final bill amounts of Rs.60,27,981-94/- even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work, i.e., “Procurement of Furniture and Ornamental GRC cladding to the newly constructed Inspection Bungalow at Vempalli in YSR District under the main work of Construction of CC Roads, Compound Wall and Furniture for Inspection Bungalow at Vempalli, YSR Compound Wall and Furniture for Inspection Bungalow at Vempalli, YSR District.”, vide allotted to the Token Bill No.2024-173121, (old token bill No.2023- 2616515) in vide agreement No.1000401762/2023-24 dated
03.02.2024.
2. The 5th respondent-Executive Engineer, R&B Division, Pulivendula has filed counter affidavit admitting the execution of the work and the amount due to the petitioner herein. It is stated that the 3rd respondent has uploaded the Ls 1st and Final bill in CFMC and generated with Token No.2023-2616515 dated 08.11.2024 and later migrated to CFMS Token No.2024-173121 for an amount of Rs.64,43,035/- (Gross amount) and the petitioner herein is entitled to an amount of Rs.60,27,982/- after statutory deductions and further stated that the admitted bills have been verified and approved by the Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer, Works Accounts, Pulivendula, and the said admitted bills, which have been uploaded and approved further to the
2nd respondent (Finance Department) will be paid after due verification.
3. In the present case, the respondents have not disputed the payment due to the petitioners for the work executed and the res