1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

                  “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on part of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 in considering the representations, dated 24.11.2025 and 11.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner to postpone the deduction of 50% of the advance payment (against running account bills) made for constructions of Seven Ekalavya Model Schools in Munchingput, Dumbriguda, Anasabadhra, Kurupam, Meliaputti, Bhamini and Guruvinaiudupeta in the upcoming payment and to deduct the same in the final settlement to be made against the additional works granted to the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned schools, as illegal, arbitrary, abdication of statutory duty apart from being violative of the fundamental right guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to postpone the deduction of 50% of the advance payment (against running account bills) made for constructions of Seven Ekalavya Model Schools in Munchingput, Dumbriguda, Anasabadhra, Kurupam, Meliaputti, Bhamini and Guruvinaidupeta in the upcoming payment against the additional works granted to the petitioner and pass…”

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted representations dated 24.11.2025 and 11.12.2025 to the concerned authorities to make payment of amount due to the petitioner by deducting only 50% out of Rs.12 crores paid as advance to the petitioner as he attended the work under the agreement by borrowing amount from banks and the petitioner was declared as N.P.A. According to the petitioner, the work under the agreements dated 26.12.2017 was completed and part payment was made to a tune of Rs.52,50,00,000/- and out of the amount due to the petitioner, the respondents are likely to make payment of Rs.38,31,00,000/- and are intending to deduct an amount of Rs.12 crores which was paid as advance and that the amount of Rs.12 crores can be deducted from the amount still due and the same need not be deducted from out of Rs.38,31,00,000/-. He further submitted that the petitioner had submitted representations to the respondents to deduct only 50% of the advance amount at the first instance from out of the due amount being paid and the balance 50% of the advance amount can be deducted out of the future payment in relation to the same contracts.

3. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare placed on record a copy of written instructions of the respondent No.4 vide Lr.No.10, dated 30.12.2025, in which it is stated that the representation of the petitioner dated 11.12.2025 was received by the office of the respondent No.5 and a memo dated 26.12.2025 was issued to the Executive Engineers of Seethampeta, Araku and Parvathipuram for submission of a detailed report on the representation of the petitioner, because as per Clause 47 of the agreement, there is no provision for mobilization of advance and therefore, after receipt of report and reply from the Executive Engineers, further action would be taken as per the rules.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the representations had been sent through e-mails, but only a copy of e-mail representation dated 11.12.2025 was filed with the writ petition, the respondents admitted receipt of only the representation dated 11.12.2025. He further submitted that as per the statement made to the press by the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 10.12.2025 published widely in newspapers, all the funds allocated by the central government would be appropriated by 31.12.2025 and therefore, there is urgency for taking appropriate action on the representations made by the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare submitted that there is no such cut-off date and all the funds had been duly spent. He further submitted that unless the amount due to the petitioner is verified, the payment would not be made and for that purpose, report is awaited and as such, there is no urgency.

6. The written instructions are silent about any appropriation of central funds by 31.12.2025.

7. Under these circumstances, without going into the merits of the dispute, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 11.12.2025 forthwith, if the fund is likely to lapse by 31.12.2025 or else, to dispose of the representation within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

                  There shall be no order as to costs.

                  Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.