N. Shiva Kumar vs. The Managing Director

Facts

The petitioner, N. Shiva Kumar, a civil contractor, was awarded Agreement No. 14/2013-14 on July 10, 2013, by the Telangana Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (TGEWIDC) for construction and balance works at APRSC (Girls) at Tandur. The petitioner completed the work, which was finalized without objection, with a pending final bill amount of Rs. 8,05,132/-. Despite completion and finalization of bills, the respondents failed to release the payment. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the final bill amount as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the release of the amount along with 18% GST. The respondents, including TGEWIDC and the State of Telangana, were represented by their respective counsel.

Held

The Court held that the action of the respondents in not releasing the pending final bill amount was illegal and arbitrary. The Court noted that the proceedings dated November 3, 2017, and November 6, 2017, clearly indicated that the petitioner had completed the work and that the final bill reflected an amount of Rs. 8,05,132/- due. The Executive Engineer, TGEWIDC, had requested the release of the pending amount due to the long delay. The Court opined that in view of the admitted fact of work completion and the request for release of pending dues, respondents 1, 3, 4, and 5 should take appropriate steps. The Court directed the respondents to release the pending final bill amount of Rs. 8,05,132/-. The issue of the 18% GST was not explicitly decided or addressed in the operative part of the judgment, but the prayer included it. The Court disposed of the writ petition without costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not releasing the pending final bill amount of Rs. 8,05,132/- to the petitioner, despite the work being completed and bills finalized, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the work was completed as per the agreement and specifications, and the bills were finalized without objection. The failure to release the payment is arbitrary and violates constitutional principles. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the State's obligation to act fairly even in contractual matters, citing cases like Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. and International Ltd. and Another v. Export and Others. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that respondents 1, 3, 4, and 5 (TGEWIDC and its officials) needed to take initiative and appropriate action as per the proceedings dated November 6, 2017, and November 3, 2017, of the Executive Engineer, TGEWIDC, addressed to the Secretary, TSREI Society. The judgment notes that the respondents did not dispute the completion of work or the final bill amount.