Sri Ratan Job Works And Material Suppliers vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim of completed works and the significant time elapsed since 2022. While the respondents initiated an inquiry due to adverse media reports and constituted an expert committee to verify the genuineness of work bills, no specific timeline was provided for this verification process. The Court found the delay in payment, without a defined resolution period, to be a cause for concern. Therefore, the Court directed the Expert Committee to examine the work bills and submit its report within four months. If the bills are found to be genuine, the Respondents are mandated to disburse the payment to the Petitioner within six weeks thereafter. The Court did not decide on the merits of the genuineness of the bills but focused on expediting the process.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Ratan Job Works And Material Suppliers, is a civil contractor who was awarded a contract by Respondent No. 3, Gudivada Municipality, for repairing pushcarts. The original work order was for Rs. 83,675/-, but the petitioner claims the bill was passed at Rs. 95,389/- after adding 18% GST. Despite the bill being passed, the petitioner had not received payment. The respondents stated that adverse newspaper clippings led to an inquiry into the genuineness of work bills submitted by the petitioner and others. An expert committee was constituted to verify these bills, and further action for payment was contingent on the committee's report. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the delay in payment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the Respondents in not releasing Rs. 95,389/- to the Petitioner, despite the completion of assigned works, is illegal and arbitrary? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had completed the assigned works and submitted their bill, which was subsequently passed. The delay in payment, despite the work being completed in 2022, is illegal and arbitrary. Respondents' Contention: The respondents contended that adverse newspaper clippings necessitated an inquiry into the genuineness of work bills. An expert committee was constituted to verify these bills, and payment would be processed only after receiving the committee's report. The respondents did not provide a specific timeline for the committee's report.