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, including the Municipal Commissioner, Malakajgiri Zone, GHMC. The petitioner sought a direction to release an outstanding payment of Rs. 1,90,000.00, along with 18% GST (totaling Rs. 2,24,200.00) and 2% annual interest. This payment was for completed entrusted works. The petitioner had made repeated representations, including a recent one on July 5, 2025, which remained unaddressed. The petitioner relied on previous court orders in W.P. No. 31872 of 2013 and Contempt Case No. 1041 of 2014.

Held

The Court acknowledged the submissions of both parties. The respondents, through their counsel, admitted that the amounts claimed by the petitioner were due. They also stated that the representation dated July 5, 2025, was pending and would be considered. The Court, recording these submissions, disposed of the writ petition. It directed respondent No. 2 (Municipal Commissioner, Malakajgiri Zone, GHMC) to forward the representation dated July 5, 2025, to the concerned authorities through respondent No. 4 (District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri) for the release of the due amount of Rs. 1,90,000.00 along with 18% GST (totaling Rs. 2,24,200.00). This action was to be completed within six weeks from the receipt of the court order, in terms of the previous orders in W.P. No. 31872 of 2013 and Contempt Case No. 1041 of 2014. 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.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondents in releasing the admitted amount of Rs. 1,90,000.00 (including GST) for completed works, despite previous court orders and repeated representations, is arbitrary and illegal, warranting a writ of mandamus? (Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to release the payment for completed works, even after specific court orders and a recent representation dated July 5, 2025, was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice. They sought a direction for the release of the principal amount and interest. Respondents' Arguments: The learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2 admitted that the amounts mentioned in the writ petition were admitted. They further submitted that the representation dated July 5, 2025, was pending and would be considered. They 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.