SILARI RAMU vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

APHC010382712023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 19825/2023 Between: 1.

SILARI RAMU, AGED 32 YEARS OCC.

CONTRACTOR, R/O.

D NO.

1-195 KANDULOAPATI VARI MARKET ROAD, K.P.

PALEM 534 280 MOGALTURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING BOARD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THULLURMANDAL, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2.

THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,VELAGAPU DI, THULLURMANDAL, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3.

AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR HOUSING BOARD, VIJAYAWADA 4.

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD.,, BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER / DISTRICT HEAD HOUSING, AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., NARSAPUR WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 6.

THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., ACHANTA WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2 MRK,J W.P.No.19825 of 2023 7.

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., ACHANTA WEST GODAVARI 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 Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the final bill amount or Rs.

9,66,675/- to the petitioner including interest for the works done in pursuance of agreement with the 5th respondent vide LS Agreement No.28/2022-23/E, dated 17.11. ted 17.11.2022 as being illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and unconstitutional and to consequently direct the Respondents to pay undisputed final bill amount Rs.

9,66,675/- to the petitioner including interest for the works done in pursuance of agreement with the 5th respondent vide LS Agreement No.28/2022-23/E, dated 17.11.2022 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the undisputed final bill amount Rs.

9,66,675/- to the petitioner including interest for the works done in pursuance of agreement with the 5th respondent LS Agreement No.28/2022-23/E, dated 17.11.2022, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.

JAMI MADHAVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.

GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2.

MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED) 3.

GP FOR HOUSING The Court made the following: 3 MRK,J W.P.No.19825 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 19825 of 2023 ORDER:- The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the final bill amount or Rs.

9,66,675/- to the petitioner including interest for the works done in pursuance of agreement with the 5th respondent vide LS Agreement No.28/2022-23/E, dated 17.11.2022 as being illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and unconstitutional and to consequently direct the Respondents to pay undisputed final bill amount Rs.

9,66,675/- to the petitioner including interest for the works done in pursuance of agreement with the 5th respondent vide LS Agreement No.28/2022- 23/E, dated 17.11. ted 17.11.2022 and pass….” 2.

The sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioner challenged the inaction of the respondents in not releasing the amounts even after completion of the entire works entrusted to him.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Mallikarjuna Moorthy, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.

Housing Corporation appearing for respondents.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, submits that in view of the non-release of the admitted amounts, the petitioner is facing multifarious problems, physically and fiscally.

Hence, he submits that the release of the amounts is just and essential.

4 MRK,J W.P.No.19825 of 2023 5.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, places a copy of the written instructions dated 22.04.2026 issued by the concerned authority of the Corporation and submits that three months’ time may be granted for paying the admitted amount of Rs.9,46,614/- to the petitioner.

6.

Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner completed the works and has yet to receive payment, this Court finds the respondents’ failure to pay is unjustified.

However, taking into consideration of the ground realities to settle the admitted amounts, the respondents are granted rational time to settle the dues.

7.

Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractor Vs Chief General Manager and Others1, in vivid terms categorically in the following manner. “8.

Be that as it may, the High Court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition.

Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction…..” 8.

It is apt to note that a mere financial incapacity/poor financial conditions, as stated by the respondent Corporation, for non-releasing of amounts after utilising the services of the petitioner, cannot be a ground. a ground.

1 (2025) SCC Online SC 1400 5 MRK,J W.P.No.19825 of 2023 9.

In view of the above stated legal position, the respondent Corporation, being the instrumentality of the ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is bound to release the amount for the undisputed works done by the petitioner, without any further delay.

A mere financial incapacity or paucity of funds cannot be a valid defence for non-fulfillment of such statutory obligations, more particularly, when the works executed by the petitioner are admitted by the respondent Corporation.

10.

So far as the interest portion is concerned, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director & Ors.

Vs.

Sree Balaji Constructions & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.60 of 2025) held that the award of interest on delayed payments was unsustainable in the absence of specific terms and conditions of the relevant agreement between the parties, but in the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not touched on the said point.

However, the Hon’ble Division Bench in similar circumstances made it clear that the parties are at liberty to pursue their claims before an appropriate forum in accordance with the Law.

11.

In the light of the above legal position, coupled with the fact that the liability for the undisputed works was admitted by the respondents, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the amount payable to the petitioner, within a period of three (03) months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

It is needless to say that the petitioner 6 MRK,J W.P.No.19825 of 2023 is at liberty to approach the appropriate civil court with regard to interest, if so advised.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 23.04.2026 PBS 7 MRK,J W.P.No. ,J W.P.No.19825 of 2023 178 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.

19825 of 2023 Date: 23.04.2026 PBS