M.Thirupathi Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M. Thirupathi Reddy, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court seeking a direction for the release of Rs. 1,35,950.00 along with 18% GST, totaling Rs. 1,60,421.00, for works entrusted to his company and completed. The petitioner had made repeated representations, including one on 05.07.2025, to the Municipal Commissioner, Jagityal Municipality (Respondent No. 2), but no action was taken. The petitioner contended that the inaction of the respondents was arbitrary and illegal. The respondents, through their counsel, admitted that the amounts mentioned were due and that the representation was pending. They proposed that the Municipal Commissioner be directed to forward the representation to the Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of Telangana, for fund release.

Held

The Court acknowledged the submissions of both parties. The respondents admitted that the amounts claimed by the petitioner were due and that the representation dated 05.07.2025 was pending. The Court noted the petitioner's request for interest on the delayed payment but left it open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy under law for that specific claim. The primary decision was to direct Respondent No. 2 (Municipal Commissioner, Jagityal Municipality) to forward the representation dated 05.07.2025 to the concerned authorities, specifically through Respondent No. 4 (District Collector, Jagityal), for the release of the due amount of Rs. 1,35,950.00 along with 18% GST (Rs. 1,60,421.00). This direction was to be complied with within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, in line with previous court orders in W.P.No.32573 of 2013 and Contempt Case No. 1049 of 2014. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the Municipal Commissioner, Jagityal Municipality, in releasing the admitted due amount of Rs. 1,35,950.00 along with 18% GST (totaling Rs. 1,60,421.00) to the petitioner, despite completion of entrusted works and repeated representations, is arbitrary and illegal, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to release the admitted payment, even after previous court orders in W.P.No.32573 of 2013 and Contempt Case No. 1049 of 2014, and despite a recent representation dated 05.07.2025, constitutes arbitrary, illegal, and violative action, infringing upon their fundamental rights. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, admitted that the amounts claimed by the petitioner were due and that the representation dated 05.07.2025 was pending consideration before Respondent No. 2. They suggested a procedural step for releasing the funds, involving forwarding the representation to the Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of Telangana, through the District Collector.