Authority: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction)
Order Date: 06.11.2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Sri K. Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 58, residing at D.No.2/52, Chadipiralla, Kadapa district.
- Respondents: State of Andhra Pradesh (represented by Principal Secretary, Tourism Development Department; Special Chief Secretary, Finance Department), Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited (APTDCL) represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, District Collector and Chairman, District Tourism Council, YSR Kadapa District, Superintendent Engineer, APTDC Vijayawada, Executive Engineer, APTDC Kadapa, District Treasury Officer, Kadapa, and Administrative Officer, Collectorate, Kadapa.
- The petitioner was awarded a contract for works in Kadapa under LS Agreement No. SE/APTDC/Agmt/2016‑17 dated 02.01.2017.
- After execution, a final bill of Rs.12,90,150 was prepared and the respondents admitted the amount as payable but failed to release the funds.
- The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.10912 of 2025 under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC seeking a mandamus directing payment of the admitted amount with interest.
- The Court noted earlier judgments (e.g., W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and W.A.No.724 of 2021) that non‑payment of dues is arbitrary and must be cleared promptly.
- Written instructions dated 05.11.2026 from the Superintending Engineer of APTDC admitted the net amount of Rs.12,90,150, but the bill was not uploaded for payment.
Final Outcome
- Respondents are directed to release the net amount of Rs.12,90,150 to the petitioner within three months (the order later clarifies a period of four months from receipt of the copy of this order).
- No admission by respondents regarding any interest component; the petitioner is entitled to interest as per the terms of the agreement or, in case of delayed payment, as per the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in W.A.No.724 of 2021.
- If both parties agree on the quantum of interest, it should be paid along with the principal amount; otherwise, the petitioner may submit a representation or memo of statement requesting interest, after which the respondent authorities must consider and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
- No order as to costs; each party bears its own costs.
- All miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ are stood closed.
Topics: Payment Dispute, State Contract