M.Thirupathi Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M. Thirupathi Reddy, representing M/s. Sky-Tech Consultancy, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court seeking a direction to the respondents (State of Telangana and its officials, including the Municipal Commissioner, Khammam Municipal Corporation) to release an outstanding payment of Rs. 2,46,965.00, along with 2% GST, totaling Rs. 2,91,419.00. The petitioner claimed that the works entrusted to them were completed, and despite repeated representations, including one dated 05.07.2025, the payment had not been released. The petitioner also sought interest on the delayed payment. The respondents, through their counsel, admitted the amounts were due and stated that the representation would be considered.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No.2, the Municipal Commissioner, Khammam Municipal Corporation, to forward the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2025 to the concerned authorities through respondent No.4, the District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem. This action is intended for the release of the due amount of Rs. 2,46,965.00 along with 2% GST, totaling Rs. 2,91,419.00. The Court specified that this process should be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court also noted that the petitioner's submission seeking payment of interest on the due amount was left open for the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies available under law. The Court did not expressly decide on the legality or arbitrariness of the respondents' inaction, but rather facilitated the process for payment based on the admitted dues and previous court orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondents in releasing the admitted payment of Rs. 2,46,965.00 (along with 2% GST, totaling Rs. 2,91,419.00) to the petitioner, despite completion of entrusted works and repeated representations, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice, warranting a writ of mandamus? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to release the payment, even after the completion of works and submission of multiple representations, including a recent one on 05.07.2025, constitutes a violation of natural justice and is illegal. They relied on previous orders of the High Court in W.P.No.32598 of 2013 and Contempt Case No.1051 of 2014, which presumably directed such payments. Respondents' contention: The learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 (Municipal Commissioner, Khammam Municipal Corporation) admitted that the amounts mentioned in the writ petition are admitted and that the representation dated 05.07.2025 is pending consideration. They proposed that respondent No.2 be directed to communicate the representation to the Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of Telangana, through proper channels for releasing the funds.