Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Datta Sai Constructions vs The State Of Ap on 6 May, 2026
Orders Reserved on : 28.04.2026
Pronounced on : 06.05.2026
Uploaded on : 06.05.2026
APHC010255142024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 12584/2024
Between:
1. DATTA SAI CONSTRUCTIONS, REP BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER, B.B APPA RAO, S/O PARDESI NAIDU, AGE 59 YRS,
D.NO.4-69-17/1, LAWSONS BAY COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, A.P.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, D.NO.40-
6-22A, KANDHARI HOTEL ROAD, REVENUE COLONY,
VIJAYAWADA, A.P.
3. THE PROJECT OFFICER, ITDA .PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM
DIST, A.P.
4. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, O/O TRIBAL WELFARE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 40-1-86, FORTUNE MURALI
PARK ROAD, REVENUE COLONY,VIJAYAWADA A.P.
5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER EO, O/O TRIBAL WELFARE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM
DIST, A.P.
2
6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O/O TRIBAL WELFARE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM
DIST, A.P
7. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O/O TRIBAL WELFARE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BHADRAGIRI.A.P.
8. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O/O TRIBAL
WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BHADRAGIRI, A.P.
9. SRI S SRINIVAS, ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF (FAC), TRIBAL WELFARE
ENGINEERING, VIJAYAWADA.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents
in issuing the proceedings Rc.No.35/ 2022/ Article 275(i)/ Mondemkhallu/
PVP/ DB/ dt.03.06.2024, dated 03.06.2024, as illegal and arbitrary and
violative Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the applicable terms
and conditions between the Petition and Respondent pursuant to the
Agreement dated 14.11.2022 consequently to set aside the proceedings
Rc.No.35/ 2022/ Article 275(i)/ Mondemkhallu/ PVP/ DB/ dt.03 .06.2024,
dated 03.06.2024 and direct the Respondents to pay the outstanding
amount after closing the contract vide Agreement dated 14.11.2022,in the
interest of justice and pass such other orders.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings Rc.No.35/ 2022/
Article275(i)/ Mondemkhallu/ PVP/ DB/ dt.03.06.2024, dated 03.06.2024,
pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice and pass
such other orders.
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in l.A.No.1 of 2024 in
WP No.12584 of 2024 on 21-06-2024, and to dismiss the writ petition and
pass such other orders.
3
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PITHANI CHANDRA SEKHARA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE
The Court made the following:
4
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION No.12584 of 2024
ORDER:
1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.5 in issuing the Proceedings in Rc.No.35/ 2022/ Article 275(1)/ Mondemkhallu/ PVP/ DB, dated 03.06.2024 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts in brief are as follows;
The Petitioner-firm had entered into an Agreement No.10/2022/2023/DB, dated 14.11.2022 for Construction of New Infrastructure to conversion Tribal Welfare Boys Hostel to Tribal Welfare Ashram School Boys of Mondemkhallu in Kurapam Mandal of Parvathipuram Manyam District. The time prescribed for completion of works was 18 months and the estimated cost of the contract is Rs.1000.00 lakhs. The Petitioner-firm had proceeded with the work and the progress was recorded in the Measurement Books. The value of the work executed by the Petitioner was Rs.9,40,11,976/- as on 25.03.2024, which was beyond the Tender Contract Value (TCV) of Rs.8,53,38,783/- as per the Agreement.
5
3. The Executive Engineers of the Department had inspected the quality of the works till the completion of the above works and Quality Control Certificates are yet to be issued. It is stated that the Executed Work Value (EWV) is Rs.6,40,68,428/- and that the amount due to the Petitioner is Rs.2,98,02,530/-. The Respondents having been satisfied with the additional work executed by the Petitioner prepared the bill, but the amounts were not released. Hence, the Petitioner-firm filed W.P.No.11360 for 2024 for release of amount due to the Petitioner as recorded in Measurement Book No.49-A (Bill Book) and for the value of the work for authorized extra quantities, supplement items as per Department's instructions.
4. It is also stated that the Petitioner had also executed two other works for the Respondent-Department in Parvathipuram Division. As the amounts were due with regard to those works, the Petitioner filed W.P.Nos.9704 of 2023 and 9706 of 2023 respectively and this Court vide Order dated 12.07.2023 directed the Respondents to make payment for the outstanding amounts. As the amounts were not paid, the Petitioner filed C.C.No.5028 of 2023 and C.C.No.5026 of 2023 respectively and thereafter outstanding amounts were released.
5. As mentioned above, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.11360 of 2024 for recovery of Rs.2,98,02,530/- and during pendency of the said Writ 6 Petition, a notice was issued by Respondent No.6 directing the Petitioner to speed up the work. Thereafter, the Petitioner gave a detailed reply on 02.05.2024 stating that the Petitioner had executed substantial work within 13 months beyond the Tender Contract Value and within a period of 13 months. Various other aspects were also urged in the reply notice. One more notice was issued on 01.05.2024 by Respondent No.6 similar to the earlier notice. While so, another notice was sent by Respondent No.8 on 30.04.2024 on similar lines referred above and Petitioner gave reply thereto on 07.05.2024.
6. On 10.05.2024, Respondent No.6 again issued another notice directing the Petitioner to resume work and threatening to terminate the contract. The Petitioner gave a detailed reply on 17.05.2024 reiterating their contentions as mentioned in the earlier replies. In spite of the detailed explanations given by the Petitioner, Respondent No.5 issued impugned Proceedings on 03.06.2024 terminating the Agreement No.10/2022-23/DB, dated 14.11.2022 by referring to Clauses 27.2, 27.3 and 55.2 of the Agreement forfeiting the deposits and other debts payable to Petitioner-firm. It is further stated that the Petitioner had executed the Total Value of Work at Rs.9,40,11,976/- and that Respondent No.6 has no authority to terminate the contract by invoking Clause 16-A of APDSS. 7
7. In the Counter-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.5 it was stated that the Agreement time ended on 13.05.2024 and the works were yet to be completed as Rs.13,04,610/- value of work is to be done by the Petitioner. It is further stated that an amount of Rs. 6,72,05,667/- was released to the Petitioner as on the date of filing of Counter-Affidavit and that the balance amount would be released to the Petitioner subject to approval of working estimate and further orders from the higher authorities from time to time.
8. It is stated that the Petitioner did not complete the work within the specified time despite repeated notices. The further allegations made was that the Petitioner was making anonymous complaints against the fellow contractors and the officers of the Department. An enquiry was made by the CID and a report was submitted that the anonymous complaints were being made by the Petitioner. On the basis of the CID enquiry report, a preliminary enquiry was made in March, 2024 and it came to light that the Petitioner claimed excess amounts in two executed works of amounts Rs.11,14,254/- and Rs.42,58,571/- respectively.
9. It is further stated that the Petitioner left the site in the first week of April and therefore notice was issued in terms of Clauses 27.2, 27.3 and 55.2(f) of the Agreement. It was also stated that the termination of 8 contract was on account of tampering of records and fraudulent practices of Petitioner after issuance of due notices as per the Agreement.
10. No Counter-Affidavit was filed by Respondent No.8.
11. Heard Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for Sri Pithani Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Smt. Ch. Swapna Priya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for Respondents.
12. An Agreement was executed on 14.11.2022 for Construction of New Infrastructure to Conversion of the Tribal Welfare Boys Hostel to TW Ashram School for Boys at Mondemkhallu, Kurupam Mandal of Parvathipuram Manyam District. The Tender Contract Value was Rs.8,54,66,983/- and the time period for completion of the work was 18 months. As per the Counter-Affidavit, the work executed by the Petitioner-firm is as under;
Sl.No. Description of Item Amount in Rs.
(Executed Part)
A ADMIN BLOCK
1 GF 24699751
2 FF 9203632
3 SF 1340044
B Dormitory Block
4 GF 29423239
5 FF 7026732
6 SF
9
C Kitchen Cum Dining GF 8272558
D Construction of Septic Tank 3660394
E Electrification
1 Admin Block GF 153291
2 Dormitory GF 205943
3 K&D 48529
84034173
13. As per the above, value of work of Rs.13,04,610/- only is pending. Out of the admitted amounts for the executed works, the Petitioner was paid only Rs. 6,72,05,667/- and balance amount is due to the Petitioner. Though, the Petitioner claims higher amounts of Rs.9,40,11,976/- for the aforesaid works, notwithstanding the same, the Petitioner was admittedly due approximately Rs.1,58,00,000/-.
14. On the aspect to time period, the Petitioner had been consistently stated in all the reply notices that the design for constructions were issued on 26.02.2023 and the works were nearly completed by April 2024 i.e., within 13 months and that there was no delay. There is no denial of this stand of the Petitioner in the impugned notices or in the Counter-Affidavit of the Respondents.
15. Coming to the notice, dated 10.05.2024 issued by Respondent No.6, wherein it is stated that the scope of the Administrative Block and Dormitory Block would be reduced to the extant due to change in SBC 10 and GST of 18% against sanctioned 12% but the Petitioner had continued the work without adhering to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Bhadragiri relating to Respondent Nos.7 and 8.
16. It is further stated that Respondent No.8 had informed that the Petitioner had stopped the work in the first week of April without intimation and that no one were present at the site when Respondent Nos.7 and 8 visited the work site in the second week of April. A reference was made to Clauses 27.2, 27.3 and 55.2(1) of the Agreement, which enable the authority to terminate the contract if the contractor stops the work for 28 days. In that context, the Petitioner was directed to resume work and give progress to complete the work within the Agreement time in full shape.
17. In reply, it is stated that instructions have been issued on 25.03.2024 to stop work as the Petitioner was not agreeing to unjust demands and obligations of Respondent No.5. It is stated that the 5th and part bill payment of the above work was being prevented from release on this account only. It is stated that the Petitioner is due an amount of Rs.2,98,02,250/- (excluding GST, Seigniorage and QC charges etc.,). It is further stated that the Petitioner has incurred expenditure beyond the contract value as narrated above. 11
18. Allegations were made against Respondent No.5 and it is specifically stated that Respondent No.5/Respondent No.8 in the presence of Respondent No.6 had called the representative of the Petitioner and had demanded money saying that he would provide the bank account number for sending the amounts demanded by Respondent No5/Respondent No.8 and since the Petitioner refused for sending the amount as demanded by Respondent No.5, Respondent No.6 had instructed the Petitioner to stop the work.
19. The then Respondent No.6, who issued the impugned notice was specifically named in the reply notice i.e., J. Santhiswara Rao, as being aware of the illegal demands made by Respondent No.5/Respondent No.8. It is further stated that over the 15 years the Petitioner has executed number of works in time and without receiving any adverse remarks for the quality of work executed.
20. In the impugned order, it is stated that the time for Agreement had lapsed on 13.05.2024 and that the Petitioner-firm was involved in serious offences and had fabricated copies of Supplemental Agreements, Working Estimates and Price Escalations. It is also stated that the Petitioner had swindled an amount of Rs.11,14,254/- and Rs.42,58,571/- under two independent contracts referred above and it is further stated 12 that the present Agreement was terminated in view of the Clauses 27.2, 27.3 and 55.2(1) of the Agreement.
21. Firstly, there is no dispute to the fact that the Respondent- authorities are due an amount of Rs.1,53,60,750/- to the Petitioner and without making payment of the said amount, the allegation that the Petitioner is not completing the works appears to be unfair. The payments and work are dynamic and the Respondents cannot claim to be above board.
22. Secondly, the allegations regarding fabrication of Supplemental Agreements, Working Estimates and excess amount under independent contracts are suddenly cropped up in the impugned notice though they are not part of the show-cause notice. Apart from that, the CID report, which was referred to, was of the year 2021 and the contract with regard to the subject work was entered with the Petitioner in the year 2023, long after the CID report. It appears that the CID report appears to have been cropped up at this length of time for the purpose of termination notice only.
23. Thirdly, in the reply notice given by the Petitioner specific allegations were made against Respondent No.5/Respondent No.8 and that Respondent No.5 in the presence of Respondent No.6 i.e., J. Santhiswara Rao (specifically named in the reply notice, 13 dated 17.5.2024) had called the representative of the Petitioner and demanded kickbacks from the Petitioner as narrated above. It is the very same J. Santhiswara Rao as Respondent No.6, who had issued the impugned notice, dated 10.05.2024 and termination notice, dated 03.06.2024. It is not out of place to mention here that Respondent No.8 was trapped in ACB raids as per the news reports in a different case in August, 2025.
24. When the allegations in person are made against Respondent No.6, as being a person, who is aware of certain illegal demands made by Respondent No.5/Respondent No.7 with the knowledge of Respondent No.6, the impugned order could not have been passed by Respondent No.6, as Respondent No.6 would be adjudicating his own case. It is too fundamental in law to say that no person should be a judge in his own case. The Latin Maxim often quoted in this context is nemo judex in causa sua, which means that any decision-maker, Judge, or administrative authority must be completely impartial and unbiased, ensuring that they have no direct personal, financial, or familial interest in the outcome of the case they are deciding. Therefore, the impugned order as well as the notice cannot be sustained.
14
25. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order as well as notice dated 03.06.2024 and 10.05.2024 issued by Respondent No.6 vide Rc.No.35/ 2022/ Article 275 (1)/ Mondemkhallu/ PVP/ DB and Rc.No.35/ 2022/ Article 275(1)/ Mondemkhallu/ PVP/ DB respectively cannot be sustained and accordingly set-aside.
26. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
27. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 06.05.2026 IS 15 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.12584 of 2024 Date: 06.05.2026 IS