M/S Akaar Architects vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Akaar Architects, represented by its proprietor RVS Shekhar, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to release the first part bill amount of Rs. 96,47,638/-. This amount is payable for comprehensive architectural design services rendered for the construction of an Integrated Collectorate Complex at Noonepalli, Nandyal District. The petitioner claims the work was completed and bills were finalized, but the payment was not released. The respondent authorities, through the Executive Engineer (R&B) Division, Nandyal, admitted the petitioner's bills but stated the status on the portal was 'Head of Account not available during the Financial Year 2024-25'. They had addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer (R&B) Buildings, Vijayawada, to obtain requisite funds.
Held
The Court noted that the respondent authorities had expressed their intention to pay the admitted amount to the petitioner. Given this, the Court found no purpose in keeping the Writ Petition pending. With the consent of both parties, the Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage. The respondent authorities were directed to pay the admitted bill amount to the petitioner within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided. The ratio decidendi is that when authorities admit liability and express an intention to pay, and the petitioner consents to a reasonable timeframe, the Court can direct payment within that timeframe to resolve the dispute expeditiously.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities have illegally and arbitrarily failed to release the admitted bill amount of Rs. 96,47,638/- to the petitioner, thereby violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite completing the contractual work and finalizing the bills, the respondent authorities have failed to release the payment, thus praying for appropriate orders to protect their interest. Respondents' Contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Roads & Buildings Department, while admitting the petitioner's bills, submitted that the delay in payment was due to the 'Head of Account not available during the Financial Year 2024-25' on the portal. They further stated that a request for funds had been made and sought six months' time for payment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that, the respondent authorities are not releasing bill amount even after the timely execution of the contractual works.
Heard Sri Komma Vijaya Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings Department and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance Department.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, contended that despite the completion of the contractual work and the finalization of the bills payable to the petitioner, the respondent authorities have failed to release the amounts. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings Department, while reiterating the contents of the counter-affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer (R&B) Division, Nandyal, contended that the petitioner’s bills have been duly admitted. However, the status of the bills on the portal is shown as “Head of Account not available during the Financial Year 2024-25.” He further submitted that a letter has been addressed to the Chief Engineer (R&B) Buildings, Vijayawada, requesting him to obtain the requisite funds from the CCLA. He therefore sought six months’ time for payment of the amount due to the petitioner.
4
To the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner reported no objection and prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking the submissions of learned counsel for the parties into consideration, as the respondent authorities have expressed their intention to pay the admitted amount to the petitioner, there is no purpose in keeping this Writ Petition pending. As such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the same, with the consent of both the parties, at the admission stage itself, by passing the following order:
“The respondent authorities are directed to pay the admitted bill amount to the petitioner within a period of six (6) months 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, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 25.09.2026 MP
5
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO.1107 of 2025 25.09.2026
MP
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.