M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

WP/12530/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01023620202627 October 2026Bench: HARINATH.N9 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

Held

The Court held that there was no dispute regarding the entrustment and execution of work by the petitioner. The central dispute concerned the petitioner's claim for payment for two coats of ceiling plastering, given that the M-books, which recorded the work executed, had been altered from two coats to a single coat. The Court found that these interpolations in the M-book were not countersigned by the parties to the agreement and therefore had to be disregarded as not binding on the petitioner. Referring to CPWD specifications (13.4.6), which state a minimum average thickness of 6 mm and a minimum of 5 mm, the Court noted that the plastering thickness was found to be 12 mm, supporting the petitioner's claim of applying two coats. The Court reasoned that under the peculiar circumstances, where M-books were altered without the petitioner's counter-signature, such interpolations must be ignored. The department was directed to take appropriate action against those responsible for interpolating the M-books. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent authorities to rectify the alterations made without the petitioner's concurrence in the M-Books and to process the petitioner's final bills based on the recordings prior to the alteration, clearing the bills expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Satya Sai Constructions, a contractor, was awarded construction work for seven Ekalavya Model Residential Schools in 2017. The petitioner claims to have incurred additional costs beyond the initial estimates, including for escalations, GST, and deviations, which were allegedly recommended and approved by the respondent authorities. The petitioner submitted final bills in 2023 and alleged that the then Chief Engineer demanded illegal gratification for clearing these bills. Subsequently, the Chief Engineer was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on August 7, 2025, for accepting a bribe. After the arrest, the petitioner discovered that the final working estimates and M-books had been unilaterally altered, changing the ceiling plastering from two coats to a single coat, without the petitioner's knowledge or consent. The petitioner quantifies a loss of ₹47,00,000 due to this alteration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the unilateral alteration of M-books regarding ceiling plastering from two coats to a single coat, without the petitioner's concurrence, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India? (Question of law and fact, concerning contractual obligations and administrative actions). 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment for two coats of ceiling plastering despite the altered M-books? (Question of law and fact, concerning contractual performance and payment entitlement). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the M-books were altered unilaterally after the arrest of the then Chief Engineer, who had allegedly made illegal demands. The petitioner argued that clause 41 of the agreement mandates that any alteration to M-books must be countersigned by the petitioner or their authorized representative. The petitioner highlighted that respondents 6 to 8, in their letters dated October 21, 2025, and October 27, 2025, admitted that corrections were made to the M-books on July 8, 2025, on instructions from the then Chief Engineer, and confirmed that the petitioner used FE-500 Grade steel and executed two coats of ceiling plastering. The 12 mm thickness of the plastering also indicated two coats. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the agreement stipulated single-coat plastering for the ceiling and that no supplementary agreement was entered into for two coats. They also submitted that the petitioner did not submit any representation seeking alteration of contract specifications. While the quality control team found 12 mm thickness, they could not differentiate if it comprised two separate coats on-site.

Sections Cited

Article 14, Article 19, Article 21

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

//1// WP.No.12530 of 2026

Date of reserved for orders : 22.09.2026 Date of pronouncement : 28.10.2026 Date of uploading

: 28.10.2026 APHC010236202026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3457] WEDNE AY, THE 28th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12530/2026 Between:

1.

M/S.SRI SATYA SAI CONSTRUCTIONS,, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.CHEKURI KRISHNAM RAJU, S/O.GOPALA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. R/O D.NO.50-97-12, SRI SATYA SAI NILAYAM, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530013. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 522238

2.

THE DIRECTOR, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SIDHARTHA NAGAR, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT.520010

3.

THE SECRETARY, GURUKULAM, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, TADEPALLI VILLAGE.522501

4.

THE CHIEF ENGINEER TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, FIRST FLOOR, MURALI FORTUNE ROAD, REVENUE COLONY PARK, SIDHARTHA NAGAR,

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.

See plans and prices

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.