K. Krishna Prasad vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Facts

The petitioner, K. Krishna Prasad, a contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents (various departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh) to release the total final bills amounting to Rs. 47,64,169/- for several annual maintenance works related to weed removal in irrigation drains. These works were carried out under multiple agreements executed in July and August 2024 for the year 2024-25. The petitioner claimed to have completed all entrusted works as per the agreements and stipulated timelines but alleged that the respondents failed to release the payment. The respondents, through the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, contended that the petitioner had not submitted copies of the agreements and M-Books to prove the completion of works, nor had the petitioner approached them with a representation for payment.

Held

The Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation. The Court ordered the respondents to pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the completion of works or the respondents' defense regarding the lack of documentation. The primary decision was to direct the respondents to consider the petition as a representation and act upon it within a specified timeframe. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondents in releasing the final bills amounting to Rs. 47,64,169/- for the completed annual maintenance works is illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they had completed all the works as per the agreements and within the stipulated time. Despite this, the respondents' failure to release the payment was illegal, arbitrary, and violated their fundamental rights. The petitioner sought a direction for the release of the total bill amount. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Irrigation, contended that the petitioner had not provided copies of the agreements and M-Books to substantiate the completion of the works. They also stated that the petitioner had not approached the respondents with a formal representation for the release of the payment.