M.Thirupathi Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M. Thirupathi Reddy, a Managing Partner of a consultancy firm, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court. The petition was against the State of Telangana and various municipal authorities. The petitioner sought a direction to release an outstanding payment of Rs. 33,37,608.00, along with 18% GST (totaling Rs. 39,38,377.00), for works completed by his company. Despite repeated representations, including one dated July 5, 2025, the payment had not been released. The petitioner also sought 2% interest per annum on the delayed payment. The respondents, represented by their respective counsel, appeared before the court.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-release of the admitted due amount of Rs. 33,37,608.00, plus 18% GST (totaling Rs. 39,38,377.00). The respondents, through their counsel, admitted these amounts were due and indicated that the pending representation dated July 5, 2025, would be considered. The Court, recording this submission, disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No. 2 (Municipal Commissioner, Vikarabad Municipality) to forward the representation dated July 5, 2025, to the concerned authorities, through respondent No. 4 (District Collector, Vikarabad), for the release of the due amount. This was to be done within six weeks from the receipt of the order, in terms of the previous court orders in W.P.No.30834 of 2013 and Contempt Case No.1036 of 2014. Regarding the petitioner's submission for payment of interest on the due amount, the Court left it open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as available under law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondents in releasing the admitted due amount of Rs. 33,37,608.00, along with 18% GST (totaling Rs. 39,38,377.00), for completed works, despite prior court orders and repeated representations, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the inaction was arbitrary and illegal, citing previous orders from this court in W.P.No.30834 of 2013 and Contempt Case No.1036 of 2014. The respondents, through their counsel, admitted the amounts were due and stated that the representation dated July 5, 2025, would be considered. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest at 2% per annum on the delayed payment? The petitioner sought interest on the outstanding amount due to the prolonged delay. The court did not explicitly address this as a separate legal question but considered the submission.