M.Thirupathi Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M. Thirupathi Reddy, managing partner of M/s. Sky-Tech Consultancy and Private Civil Engineering (Consultancy), filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court. The petition challenged the inaction of the respondents, including the State of Telangana and the Municipal Commissioner, Sangareddy Municipality, in releasing Rs. 10,31,976.00, along with 18% GST (totaling Rs. 12,17,732.00), for completed works. The petitioner had made repeated representations, including one dated 05-07-2025. The petitioner also sought 2% interest per annum on the delayed payment. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Held

The Court noted that the amounts claimed by the petitioner were admitted by Respondent No. 2. The Court recorded the submission of the learned standing counsel for Respondent No. 2 that the representation dated 05-07-2025 would be considered and that for the purpose of releasing funds, Respondent No. 2 would communicate the representation to the Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of Telangana, through the proper channel. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2 to forward the representation dated 05-07-2025 to the concerned authorities through Respondent No. 4 (The District Collector, Sangareddy) for the release of the due amount of Rs. 10,31,976.00 along with 18% GST (Rs. 12,17,732.00). This direction was to be complied with within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, in terms of the previous orders of this Court in W.P. No. 29077 of 2013 and Contempt Case No. 1028 of 2014. Regarding the petitioner's submission seeking payment of interest on the due amount, the Court left it open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as available under law. No specific finding was given on the entitlement to interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondents in releasing the admitted amount of Rs. 10,31,976.00, along with 18% GST (Rs. 12,17,732.00), for completed works, despite repeated representations, is arbitrary and illegal, violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of the due amount? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondents' failure to release the payment, despite completion of works and prior court orders in W.P. No. 29077 of 2013 and Contempt Case No. 1028 of 2014, was arbitrary and illegal. They relied on the previous court orders as a basis for their claim. The petitioner also argued for the payment of interest due to the prolonged delay. Respondents' arguments: The Municipal Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) admitted that the amounts mentioned in the writ petition were due and that the representation dated 05-07-2025 was pending consideration. The respondent suggested that for releasing the funds, the representation should be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of Telangana, through the proper channel.