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

Held

The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that the works were executed in 2021 and that more than four years had elapsed without payment. Considering the delay, the Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. 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 made no order as to costs. No specific issue regarding the GST component or its legality was decided, as the focus was on the release of the admitted amount after verification of the work bills.

Facts

The Petitioner, Sri Ratan Job Works And Material Suppliers, a civil contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the inaction of the Respondents in releasing Rs.92,306/-. The Petitioner was awarded a contract for repairing dumper bins for Rs.95,545/- on 05.02.2021. The Petitioner claims to have completed the work and submitted a bill, which was passed at Rs.92,306/- after adding 18% GST. However, no payment was disbursed. The Respondents stated that adverse newspaper clippings prompted an inquiry into contingent items. An expert committee was constituted on 13.12.2024 to verify the genuineness of work bills, and further action would be taken upon receiving the report. No time limit was specified for the committee's report.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondents' failure to release the payment of Rs.92,306/- to the Petitioner for completed works, despite the bill being passed, is illegal and arbitrary, thereby warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The Petitioner argued that the work was completed in 2021, and over four years have elapsed without payment, making the Respondents' inaction illegal and arbitrary. The Petitioner relied on the fact that the bill was passed, indicating acceptance of the work. The Petitioner sought a direction for the release of the admitted amount. The Respondents contended that adverse newspaper clippings necessitated an inquiry into the genuineness of work bills. They informed the Court that an expert committee had been constituted to examine the bills and that further action would be taken based on its report. The Respondents did not explicitly argue against the Petitioner's claim on merits but sought time for the inquiry process.