Nataraj Reddy S/O Vittal Reddy vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Nataraj Reddy, a PWD Class-1 Contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents (various officials of the Deputy Commissioner's office and Executive Engineer's office) to consider his representation dated April 12, 2022. The petitioner was awarded a work order and claims to have completed all civil works within the stipulated time, except for the irrigation of a pump house and pump motor near the HLC canal due to the irrigation department not granting permission. The petitioner's grievance was the respondents' inaction in finalizing his bills and making payments for the completed work. The respondent-State, in its statement of objections, admitted that the petitioner completed all civil works except for the pump house and pump motor installation due to lack of permission from the irrigation department. The respondents also detailed their correspondence with the irrigation department and requested the Deputy Commissioner to finalize the bills.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is legally entitled to recover the amount due for the completed civil work, excluding the cost of installing the pump house and pump motor, as the non-completion of this part was due to the irrigation department's refusal to grant permission, which was beyond the petitioner's control. The Court also held that the petitioner is entitled to claim GST on the completed civil work. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner is entitled to the FSD amount of Rs. 1,41,000/-. The reasoning was based on the respondents' unequivocal admission that the civil work was completed by the petitioner within the stipulated time. The Court found the respondents' inaction in settling the final bills to be a "sorry state of affairs" and that the petitioner could not be penalized or denied payment for work completed. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and issue the final bill in accordance with the law, including the FSD amount and GST, within two months. The writ petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is legally entitled to recover the amount due for the completed civil work, excluding the cost of installing the pump house and pump motor, given that permission for the latter was not granted by the irrigation department? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the completed civil work? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the FSD (presumably a security deposit or retention amount) of Rs. 1,41,000/-? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he had completed all civil works as per the contract, and the non-completion of the pump house and pump motor installation was due to reasons beyond his control (lack of permission from the irrigation department). Therefore, he should be paid for the work done and be entitled to GST and the FSD amount. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent-State, through its statement of objections, admitted the completion of civil works by the petitioner, except for the pump house and pump motor. They detailed their efforts to obtain permission from the irrigation department and requested the Deputy Commissioner to finalize the bills. They did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's entitlement to GST or the FSD amount but highlighted the procedural hurdles in finalizing the bills due to the lack of irrigation department permission.