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 delay in payment, noting that over three years had elapsed since the work was executed in 2022. The Court found the lack of a time limit for the expert committee's report to be a contributing factor to the prolonged delay. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The Expert Committee was directed to examine the work bills and submit its report within four months. If the bills were found to be genuine, the Respondents were ordered to disburse the amount to the Petitioner within six weeks thereafter. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality of the initial withholding of payment but focused on expediting the resolution process.

Facts

The Petitioner, Sri Ratan Job Works And Material Suppliers, is a civil contractor who was awarded a work order for repairing a tractor trailer for Rs. 94,788/-. The Petitioner claims to have completed the work and submitted a bill. The bill was passed at a net amount of Rs. 91,573/- after adding 18% GST. However, no payment was disbursed to the Petitioner, leading to the filing of this writ petition. The Respondents stated that adverse newspaper clippings prompted an inquiry into the genuineness of work bills, leading to the constitution of an expert committee to verify them. The committee's report was pending, and no time limit was specified for its submission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondents' action in withholding payment of Rs. 91,573/- to the Petitioner, despite the Petitioner claiming completion of assigned works, is illegal and arbitrary, particularly concerning the delay in payment and the absence of a specified timeline for the inquiry process? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the delay in payment is illegal and arbitrary, as the works were completed in 2022 and more than three years have elapsed without disbursement. The Petitioner implicitly argues that the ongoing inquiry, without a time limit, is causing undue hardship. Respondents' contention: The Respondents contended that an inquiry was initiated based on adverse newspaper clippings concerning contingent items and work bill genuineness. An expert committee was constituted to verify the bills, and further action, including payment, would be taken after receiving the committee's report. The Respondents did not explicitly argue on the legality of the delay but rather explained the procedural steps taken.