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 delay in payment, noting that the works were executed in 2022 and more than three years had elapsed. The Court directed that the work bills submitted by the Petitioner be examined by the constituted Expert Committee, and a report submitted within four months. If the work bills are found to be genuine, the Respondents are directed to disburse the amount to the Petitioner within six weeks thereafter. The Court did not decide on the genuineness of the bills or the legality of the withholding of payment at this stage, but rather focused on expediting the verification process and subsequent payment. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the ultimate determination of the genuineness of the bills was delegated to the expert committee.

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 05 pushcarts. The work was allotted at Rs.84,180/- vide an agreement dated 21.11.2022. The Petitioner claims to have completed the work and submitted a bill for Rs.84,180/-, which was subsequently passed at Rs.95,964/- after adding 18% GST. However, no payment was released. The Respondents stated that adverse newspaper clippings led to an inquiry by the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, who instructed an examination of work bills. An expert committee was constituted on 13.12.2024 to verify the genuineness of the bills, and further action for payment was contingent on the committee's report.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondents' action in withholding payment of Rs.95,964/- to the Petitioner, despite the Petitioner claiming completion of assigned works, is illegal and arbitrary? The Petitioner argued that the work was completed as per the agreement and the bill was passed, yet payment was withheld without justification. The Petitioner contended that the delay in payment was causing hardship. The Respondents, through signed instructions, stated that adverse newspaper clippings prompted an inquiry into the genuineness of work bills. They argued that 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 explicitly state a legal argument but indicated that the process of verification was ongoing.