IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23747 of 2010 Between: Vaka Narasimha Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Chief Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Water Supply & Sanitation (RWs & S),Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23747 of 2010 ORDER: Feeling aggrieved by the enormous delay in paying the bills to the petitioner in respect of the work pertaining to providing effective waste disposal systems in East Godavari District under TSC programme covered by work order dated 05.11.2007, the present Writ Petition is filed. At the hearing, it is not disputed that identical Writ Petitions were disposed of by this Court by more than one order. They are orders dated 09.02.2010 in Writ Petition No.1010 of 2010 and batch and 26.04.2010 in Writ Petition No.27178 of 2009. Indeed, the latter order has followed order dated 09.02.2010 in Writ Petition No.1010 of 2010 and batch, wherein this Court observed as under: “Three years have elapsed, even since the petitioners were entrusted the works and the execution thereof was completed. Failure or refusal to pay the bills for a long period would certainly cause hardship to the petitioners. Normally, the works are allocated within the limits of the amount sanctioned in the budget. The respondents cannot take advantage of the clause, relating to availability of funds. In case, the works are launched without verifying the financial condition, it amounts to mal-administration. The delay on such grounds is prone to give rise to several unlawful practices, such as lobbying. The respondents cannot further delay the payment of the amounts……… Hence, the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to settle the bills of the petitioners, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.” In my opinion, the facts of this case squarely resemble that dealt with by this Court in the abovementioned cases. In the light of the above-reproduced order, the respondents are directed to pay the admitted bill amount to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.30383 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.12.2010 ES