Srilalitha Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. On October 27, 2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. The Court granted this permission. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. Any pending Interlocutory Applications (IA) associated with the Writ Petition were also closed. The Court did not make any findings on the legality or arbitrariness of the respondents' actions, nor did it decide on the release of the bill amount or GST. The issue of whether the inaction violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India remained undecided on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Srilalitha Constructions, represented by its Managing Partner, filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The petition challenged the inaction of the respondents (various departments of the State of Andhra Pradesh, including Irrigation and CAD Water Resources, Finance, District Collector, Commissioner of Water Resources, Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer, and Executive Engineer) in releasing the final bill amount of Rs. 2,80,16,117/- for completed works under an agreement dated 19.09.2025. The petitioner sought a direction to release this amount along with 18% GST and interest, alleging that the delay was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional rights. The matter was listed for hearing on October 27, 2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondent authorities in releasing the final bill amount of Rs. 2,80,16,117/- plus 18% GST and interest, despite the petitioner completing the works as per the agreement dated 19.09.2025, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to release the final bill amount for the completed works, as per the agreement, was causing significant financial loss and constituted illegal and arbitrary action, violating fundamental constitutional rights. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the respondents. The General Power of Attorney for Irrigation and CAD, and Finance Planning appeared for the respondents.