M.Thirupathi Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M. Thirupathi Reddy, a Managing Partner of Sky-Tech Consultancy, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court. The petition was against the State of Telangana and various municipal authorities, including the Municipal Commissioner of Siddipet Municipality. The petitioner sought a direction to release an outstanding payment of Rs. 5,89,046.00, along with 18% GST, totaling Rs. 6,95,074.00. This amount was due for works entrusted to and completed by the petitioner's company. Despite repeated representations, including one dated July 5, 2025, the payment had not been released. The petitioner argued that the inaction of the respondents was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice and constitutional principles.

Held

The Court acknowledged the admitted dues of Rs. 5,89,046.00, along with 18% GST (totaling Rs. 6,95,074.00), for the works completed by the petitioner. The Court noted the submission of the standing counsel for Respondent No.2 that the representation dated July 5, 2025, would be considered and that it would be forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of Telangana, through the District Collector, Siddipet. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No.2 to forward the representation dated July 5, 2025, to the concerned authorities (through Respondent No.4, the District Collector, Siddipet) for the release of the due amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Regarding the petitioner's plea for interest on the delayed payment, the Court left it open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as available under law. The Court did not decide on the issue of interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondents in releasing the admitted due amount of Rs. 5,89,046.00, along with 18% GST (totaling Rs. 6,95,074.00), for completed works, despite repeated representations, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondents' failure to release the payment for completed works, even after multiple representations and in light of previous court orders (W.P.No.29203 of 2013 and Contempt Case No.1029 of 2014), constituted arbitrary and illegal action. They relied on the previous court orders as a basis for the claim and sought a direction for payment. The petitioner also sought interest on the delayed payment. Respondents' Arguments: The Municipal Commissioner, Siddipet Municipality (Respondent No.2), through its standing counsel, admitted that the amounts mentioned in the writ petition were due. The counsel assured the Court that the representation dated July 5, 2025, would be considered and suggested that Respondent No.2 be directed to forward the representation to the Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of Telangana, through the District Collector, Siddipet, for fund release.