M.Thirupathi Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M. Thirupathi Reddy, sought a writ of mandamus from the Telangana High Court to direct the respondents (State of Telangana and its municipal authorities) to release payment of Rs. 21,26,745.00 along with 18% GST (Rs. 23,36,099.00) and 2% interest per annum. The petitioner claimed that the works entrusted to his company were completed, and despite repeated representations, including one dated July 5, 2025, the payment remained outstanding. The petitioner also referred to previous court orders in W.P. No. 29265 of 2013 and Contempt Case No. 1030 of 2014, which he contended supported his claim for payment. The respondents acknowledged the admitted nature of the amounts and agreed to consider the representation.

Held

The Court noted the submissions of both parties. The respondent No. 2, through its standing counsel, admitted that the amounts claimed by the petitioner were due and agreed to consider the representation dated July 5, 2025. The Court recorded that respondent No. 2 would forward the representation to the concerned authorities, specifically through respondent No. 4 (The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem), for the release of the due amount of Rs. 21,26,745.00 along with 18% GST (Rs. 23,36,099.00). This direction was to be complied with within four weeks from the date of the order, in terms of the previous court orders in W.P. No. 29265 of 2013 and Contempt Case No. 1030 of 2014. Regarding the petitioner's submission for payment of interest on the due amount, the Court left it open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies as available under law. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and with the consent of the parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' inaction in releasing the admitted payment of Rs. 21,26,745.00 along with 18% GST and interest, despite completion of works and previous court orders, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice, thus 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 due amount, which includes GST and interest, after the completion of works and in the face of prior court pronouncements, constitutes a violation of their obligations and principles of natural justice. They relied on previous orders of the High Court in W.P. No. 29265 of 2013 and Contempt Case No. 1030 of 2014. Respondents' Arguments: The learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2 admitted that the amounts mentioned in the writ petition are admitted. They further stated that the representation dated July 5, 2025, 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 releasing the funds.