M.Thirupathi Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M. Thirupathi Reddy, a Managing Partner of M/s. Sky-Tech Consultancy and Private Civil Engineering (Consultancy), 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 for the release of Rs. 9,32,250.00, including 18% GST, totaling Rs. 11,00,055.00, along with 2% interest per annum. This amount was allegedly due for completed works entrusted to the petitioner's company. The petitioner had made repeated representations, including one on July 5, 2025, but no action was taken by the respondents. The petitioner also referred to previous court orders in W.P.No.32566 of 2013 and Contempt Case No.1047 of 2014.

Held

The Court noted that the amounts claimed by the petitioner were admitted by the respondents. The standing counsel for respondent No.2 assured that the representation dated July 5, 2025, would be considered and proposed a procedural step for its forwarding. Recording this submission, the Court disposed of the writ petition. It directed respondent No.2 to forward the representation dated July 5, 2025, to the concerned authorities through respondent No.4 (District Collector, Kodad) for the release of the due amount of Rs. 9,32,250.00, including 18% GST (totaling Rs. 11,00,055.00). This direction was to be complied with within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, in terms of the previous court orders in W.P.No.32566 of 2013 and Contempt Case No.1047 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. The issue of entitlement to interest was expressly left undecided by the Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondents in releasing the admitted due amount of Rs. 9,32,250.00 (including 18% GST, totaling Rs. 11,00,055.00) to the petitioner, despite completion of works and previous court orders, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and contractual obligations). 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest at 2% per annum on the delayed payment of the due amount? (Question of law, concerning entitlement to interest on delayed payments). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondents' failure to release the admitted payments, even after completion of works and repeated representations, was illegal and arbitrary. They relied on previous orders of the High Court in W.P.No.32566 of 2013 and Contempt Case No.1047 of 2014, which presumably directed payment. The petitioner also argued for the payment of interest due to the prolonged delay. Respondents' arguments: The learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 (Municipal Commissioner, Kodad Municipality) admitted that the amounts mentioned in the writ petition were admitted. They stated that the representation dated July 5, 2025, would be considered and proposed that respondent No.2 be directed to forward the representation to the Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of Telangana, through proper channels for fund release.