IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20978 of 2008 Between: Sri Sai Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri V. Venakteshwar Rao, S/o. Matta Rao, Aged about 45 Years, R/o. H.No. 16-1-486/4, Near MVSR Engineering College, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Engineering (Tribal Welfare Department, AP), Sankshema Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 2 The Ex-Officio Superintending Engineer, (Tribal Welfare Department, AP), Sankshema Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 The Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Srisailam, Kurnool District. 4 The Project Director, Tribal Welfare, Srisailam, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents herein in not setting the ﬁnal bill of the work construction work of S.T. Girls Hostel Building at Suryapet at Nalgonda District is bad, arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to settle the ﬁnal bill immediately with interest to the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20978 of 2008 ORDER: The writ petitioner is a partnership ﬁrm represented by its Managing Partner, Sri V.Venkateshwar Rao. The petitioner undertook construction of S.T. Girls Hostel Building at Suryapet, Nalgonda District. Administrative sanction came to be issued by the concerned authorities on 03.06.2003. The estimated cost of the building was Rs.37.00 lakhs. The petitioner completed construction of the building and submitted a bill in the year 2004. Thereafter, he made representations to the second respondent for settlement of the ﬁnal bill. The second respondent issued an Urgent Memo No.EOSE/TA/AE/SLM1/Misc/Works/2008, dated 24.07.2008 to the third respondent to settle the ﬁnal bill of the petitioner on or before 15.08.2008. Despite the instructions by the second respondent, the third respondent did not settle the bill. Hence, this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare received notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent is not settling his ﬁnal bill despite the instructions issued by the second respondent. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:25.09.2008 Note: Furnish CC within one week B/O va