M.Thirupathi Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Thirupathi Reddy, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana challenging the inaction of the respondents (State of Telangana and its officials) in releasing an admitted amount of Rs. 24,85,500.00, along with 18% GST (Rs. 29,32,890.00), for works completed by the petitioner. The petitioner had made repeated representations, including one on July 5, 2025, to the Municipal Commissioner, Mandamarri Municipality, without receiving payment. The petitioner also sought interest at 2% per annum on the due amount. The respondents acknowledged the amounts as admitted and stated that the representation would be considered. The Court was informed of previous orders in W.P.No. 31128 of 2013 and Contempt Case No. 1040 of 2014, which seemingly related to the petitioner's claims.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the amounts claimed by the petitioner were admitted by the respondents. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No. 2, the Municipal Commissioner, Mandamarri Municipality, to forward the petitioner's representation dated July 5, 2025, to the concerned authorities through respondent No. 4, the District Collector, Mancherial. This forwarding is for the purpose of releasing the due amount of Rs. 24,85,500.00 along with 18% GST, totaling Rs. 29,32,890.00. The Court mandated that this action be completed within six weeks from the date of receiving the order. Regarding the petitioner's request for interest on the due amount, the Court left it open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as available under law, effectively not deciding the interest claim in this writ petition. The Court did not explicitly discuss any specific GST provisions or rules.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' inaction in releasing the admitted payment of Rs. 24,85,500.00 along with 18% GST (totaling Rs. 29,32,890.00) for completed works is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite completing the entrusted works and making repeated representations, the respondents have failed to release the payment, which is illegal, unjust, and arbitrary. The petitioner relied on previous court orders in W.P.No. 31128 of 2013 and Contempt Case No. 1040 of 2014 to support their claim for payment. Respondents' Contention: The learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2 admitted that the amounts mentioned in the writ petition are admitted. They further submitted that the representation dated July 5, 2025, pending before respondent No. 2 would be considered and proposed that respondent No. 2 be directed to communicate the representation to the Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of Telangana, through proper channels for fund release.