IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15150 of 2005 Between: S. Vekata Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, R/o. M. Mallepalli Village, Chintapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretrary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer- in Chief, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Panchyat Raj & Rural Development,Department, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Engineer, Govt.Of Andhra Pradesh, Panchyat Raj & Rural Development,Department, Hyderabad. 4 The Chief executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 5 The Executive Engineer, Panchyat Raj & Rural Development,Department, Miryala guda, Nalgonda District. 6 The Pay and Accounts Officer, A.M.R.P, G.V. Gudem, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. K.Muralidhar Reddy for Sri G.Tuhin Kumar Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and 6: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 : Sri G. Elisha The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the bill amount to the petitioner in spite of completion of works as per allotment order dated 23-02-2005 issued by respondent No.4 as unjust and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the bill amount. Heard Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G.Elisha, learned counsel representing respondents 4 and 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he completed all the works allotted to him by proceedings dated 23-02-2005 of respondent No.4 in all respects, payments are not being made for the said works executed by him. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5, he categorically admitted that the petitioner, who was entrusted with five works, completed the same by 23-03-2005 and necessary measurements were recorded in the respective measurement books. He submitted that the bills were prepared and after their scrutiny, they were sent to respondent No.6 for payment and the said respondent has not made payment due to non-availability of L.O.C and that on 01-04-2005 all the pending bills in respect of the works executed under R.R.M grant are treated as spillover works under the succeeding financial year i.e., 2005-2006 and the same has to be approved by respondent No.4. He further stated that after approval of spillover works sanctioned by respondent No.4 and after receiving L.O.C from respondent No.3, payment will be made to the petitioner. At the hearing, neither counsel is able to report to the Court whether as undertaken by respondent No.4, payments have been made to the petitioner. There is hardly any need to emphasize that it is the bounden duty of the State and its Officers to pay the bills within a reasonable time of their falling due to the contractors. If payment of the bill amounts has not been made for unduly long periods, such an action on the part of the State cannot be justified. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents 4 and 5 to pay the outstanding amounts in respect of the works allotted to the petitioner by proceedings dated 23-02-2005 issued by respondent No.4, if not already paid, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be free to approach the appropriate Court for claiming damages against the respondents for undue delay in payment of the admitted bills. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.19266 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 4th July, 2008 vrn