Abc Constructions vs. The State Of Ap
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the respondent authorities are not paying the bill amount of Rs.4,99,058/- for the execution of work i.e., Providing BT Road from KM 0/990 to 0/1000 Beach Road to Nemam House sites at Nemam (V) of Kakinada (R) Mandal even though completed the entire work is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of constitution of India and consequential direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 4,99,058/- forthwith along with interest in the interest of justice and pass such other order…”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5/Gram Panchayat.
The petitioner claims to be a registered contractor engaged in the execution of civil works, including construction of bridges, roads and canals, and that it was entrusted with various works of the Panchayat Raj Department and the Roads & Buildings Department on a tender basis. It is its case that it was awarded a contract for execution of the work viz. Providing BT Road from KM 0/990 to KM 0/1000 from Beach Road to Nemam House Sites at Nemam Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal. It is the case of the petitioner that it deposited the requisite security amount and executed the work to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned, and upon completion of the work, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 measured the same and recorded the measurements in the Measurement Books, and the value of the work was assessed at Rs.4,99,058/-.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that notwithstanding the completion of the work and its measurement by the competent authorities, the amount due towards the executed work has not been paid till date. According to the petitioner, although the work was completed more than four years ago, the respondent authorities have not released the admitted amount payable to him. Aggrieved by the non-payment of the said amount, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5, on written instructions, from the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Kakinada-4th respondent, submits that there is no dispute with regard to the execution of the work. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.4,15,949/- after statutory deductions such as Income Tax, GST, Labour Cess, etc., aggregating to Rs.83,109/-, and that proposals for release of grant were submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, and seeks six months’ time for payment of the said amount. The written instructions are placed on record.
Having regard to the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the works executed by the petitioner and the amount payable to it, and in view of the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5, the respondent authorities are directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,15,949/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Nine Only) to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date: 16.06.2026. MS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Writ Petition No:8323 of 2026 Date: 16.06.2026
MS
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.