M/S. Manasa Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Manasa Constructions, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to release the final bill amount of Rs. 38,01,419/- for O&M works completed under two agreements (No. 107/2023-24 and 108/2023-24, both dated 30.03.2024) with the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Gudivada (Respondent No. 7). The petitioner contended that despite completing the works as per the agreements, the payment, including GST amounts of Rs. 3,20,171/- and Rs. 6,10,746/-, was not released, causing financial loss. The respondents, through the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Development Authority, argued that the petitioner had not submitted the quality control certificate or the M Book, which were necessary for processing the request. The High Court, without delving into the merits, directed the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 7) to treat the writ petition as a representation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Held

The Court, having heard the submissions from both sides, decided not to delve into the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the 7th respondent, the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Gudivada, to treat the writ petition as a formal representation from the petitioner. The Court further instructed the 7th respondent to consider the petitioner's case and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the Court's order. The petitioner was granted the liberty to submit all necessary supporting documents to the 7th respondent to substantiate their claim. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no order was made as to costs. Any pending applications were also closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondents in releasing the final bill amount of Rs. 38,01,419/-, including GST, for the completed O&M works under agreements No. 107/2023-24 and 108/2023-24, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, thereby warranting a direction for immediate release of the payment. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they had successfully completed the works as per the agreements and that the respondents' failure to release the final bill amount, which includes GST, was illegal and arbitrary, causing them significant financial loss. They sought a writ of mandamus to direct the release of the outstanding amount. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Development Authority, contended that the petitioner had not provided essential documents, namely the quality control certificate and the M Book, which are prerequisites for considering the payment request. Therefore, they argued that the petitioner's claim could not be entertained in the absence of these documents.