IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5797 of 2011 Between: E. Rambhupal Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Kasa Jaganmohan 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.5797 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in finalizing the petitioner’s bills for the works executed in pursuance of the work order issued vide proceedings Rc.No.AEE/1/FDR/Nomination/2009, dated 19.10.2009 (mentioned as 09.10.2009 in the prayer), as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who is a registered Class-III contractor, was entrusted with the work related to flood damage repairs to the gravelling to the internal roads in S.C. colony at R.K. Dudyala vide proceedings dated 19.10.2009 of respondent No.2 with an estimated cost of Rs.2 lakhs. It is also not in dispute that the said work has been completed in all respects. The bills payable to the petitioner were withheld obviously on the ground that Writ Petition No.23453 of 2009 filed questioning award of the said work was pending. The petitioner pleaded that the said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court on 04.02.2009 upholding the sanction of the work. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not paying the bills pertaining to the work executed by him. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj while admitting that the petitioner has executed the work and is entitled to payment of the bills stated that respondent No.3 has processed the bills and submitted the same to the Executive Engineer, P.R. Kurnool and that the same are pending with him. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that if the payment is delayed, there is a likelihood of the budget lapsing. In my opinion, when the petitioner has executed the work, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to pay the admitted bills to him. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay the bills to the petitioner, which he is legally entitled to receive, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.7215 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.03.2011 ES