M.Thirupathi Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M. Thirupathi Reddy, operating as Sky-Tech Consultancy, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents (State of Telangana and its municipal authorities) to release an outstanding payment of Rs. 7,08,440, along with 18% GST, totaling Rs. 8,35,959.00. The petitioner claims the works entrusted to them have been completed. Despite repeated representations, including one on July 5, 2025, the payment has not been released. The petitioner argues that this inaction is arbitrary, illegal, and violates principles of natural justice. The petition also sought interest at 2% per annum on the delayed payment.

Held

The Court, with the consent of both parties, disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage. It directed the respondent No. 2 (Municipal Commissioner, Suryapet Municipality) to forward the petitioner's representation dated July 5, 2025, to the concerned authorities through respondent No. 4 (District Collector, Suryapet). This forwarding is for the release of the due amount of Rs. 7,08,440 along with 18% GST, totaling Rs. 8,35,959. The release is to be in terms of previous orders passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 29265 of 2013 and Contempt Case No. 1031 of 2014, and must be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Regarding the claim for interest at 2% per annum, the Court held that it is left open to the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy as available under law. The Court did not expressly decide on the entitlement to interest but allowed the petitioner to pursue it separately.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondents in releasing the payment of Rs. 7,08,440 along with 18% GST (totaling Rs. 8,35,959.00) to the petitioner, despite completion of entrusted works and repeated representations, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice? (Question of law). 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest at 2% per annum on the delayed payment? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondents' failure to release the payment after the completion of work and despite their representations is arbitrary, illegal, and violates natural justice. They sought a direction for the release of the principal amount along with GST and interest. The petitioner relied on the principle of similar orders passed by the High Court in similar circumstances. Respondents' arguments: The learned Government Pleader and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.