Ch. Chandrasekhar vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondents to release the admitted amount of Rs. 15,99,773/- to the petitioner within two months of receiving the order. The Court clarified that if the petitioner was entitled to any higher amount, that would also be paid as per their entitlement. The reasoning was based on the admission of the claim by the respondents and the stated reason for delay (lack of LOC), which did not negate the petitioner's entitlement. The principle established is that admitted contractual dues, even with procedural delays like lack of LOC, should be released to the contractor within a reasonable timeframe, and the court will intervene to ensure such payments. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Ch. Chandrasekhar, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents (State of Andhra Pradesh and others) to release withheld amounts, including GST, further security, and earnest money deposit (EMD), related to two works executed under agreement numbers 36/2023-24 and 42/2023-24 for the year 2023-24. The petitioner claimed a total of Rs. 15,99,773/-. The respondents, through the Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the petitioner's claim but stated that the bills were not uploaded due to a lack of LOC (Letter of Credit). The Court noted a discrepancy between the petitioner's claimed amount and the gross amount payable as per written instructions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the inaction of the respondents in releasing withheld amounts, including GST, further security, and EMD, for the work executed by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, and in violation of constitutional principles (Article 14, 21, and 19(g))? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that despite the respondents admitting the entitlement to the claimed amounts, non-payment was arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. Respondents' contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation admitted the petitioner's claim but cited the lack of LOC as the reason for the delay in uploading the bills. No other arguments were recorded for the respondents.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
APHC010031172025
IN THE H (S Monday, th Tw The Honoura Wri Between: Ch.Chandrasekhar
AND The State of Andhra Prades Counsel for the Petitioner 1.K.N.Krishna Kumar Counsel for the Responde 1.GP for irrigation Comm 2.GP for finance plannin The Court made the follow
This writ petition is particularly one in the natu respondents in not paying w deposit (FSD) amounts an preparing final bill in respe l) Amount of Rs.6,65,391/ channel and its branches under agreement No. 36/2 amount of Rs.9,34,382/- in i.e., removal of weed on lo IGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Special Original Jurisdiction) he Seventeenth day of February, o Thousand Twenty Five Present able Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi it Petition No.1694/2025 ...P sh and others ...Resp r: ent(S): mercial Area Development ng wing Order: filed to issue a writ order or directi re of writ of mandamus declaring inacti with held amounts, GST amounts, furthe nd earnest money deposit (EMD) am ect of the work executed by the petiti /- O and M to removal of weed on ko under cowtharam section for the year 2023-24 dated 17.07.2023 and II) fin n respect of the work executed by the ower pulleru and batumilli canals
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.