SRI SRINIVASA AND COMPANY v. THE STATE OF AP
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: V.SUJATHA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2024-03-13. SRI SRINIVASA AND COMPANY v. THE STATE OF AP. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
APHC010060702024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3584/2024 Between: Sri Srinivasa And Company ... PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ... RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM 2. REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA) 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) 4. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 5. REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA) 6. REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA) 7. REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA) The Court made the following: ORDER: st This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 1 respondent in not taking steps to consider the letter of the Executive th Engineer/7 respondent vide Lr. Rc. No.
Samagra Shiksha/ Guntur/ APREIS/ Tadikonda/2021, dated 21-12-2022 with a request to accord administrative sanction for an amount of Rs. 20. 55 Lakhs for the balance work of Construction of Dormitory Room and Toilets (Ground Floor) for VII class at APR School (Excellence Boys) at Tadikonda Village and Mandal in Guntur District and the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs. 20,55,000/- towards completion of modification and balance works as a part of construction of dormitory room and toilets (Ground Floor) for VII Class at APR School (Excellence Boys) at Tadikonda Village and Mandal in Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. At the time of hearing, Ms. R. Sudha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for the Samagra Shiksha appearing for the respondents 2, 5 to 7 produced a copy of instructions of the Additional Project Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha, Guntur dated 17. 02.
2024, wherein it is stated that – “The contractor has completed the work physically and the rd Executive Engineer, Samagra Shiksha, Guntur has passed the 3 and final bill and amount paid to the contractor by the Secretary, APREIS, Guntur for the above said work. Therefore, the total amount paid to the Contractor is Rs. 94,45,394/-. During the execution as per instructions of the higher authorities some of the type of materials is changed as per Mana Badi Nedu guidelines. Due to this, the estimate cost is increased and another Rs. 20. 55 lakhs is required to complete the work. Hence, the proposal estimate is prepared and submitted by the Executive Engineer, Samagra Shiksha, Guntur to the Secretary, APREIS, Guntur for according administrative sanction for Rs. 20. 55 lakshs. But till now, administrative sanction not yet received. It is further submitted that as soon as receiving the administrative sanction the work will be taken up and will be completed physically and financially. ” 4.
In view of the above instructions, since the bill amount claimed by the petitioner is an admitted bill, which fact was also not denied by the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to release admitted bill amount of Rs. 20,55,000/- to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Pnr
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.