Ravi Subba Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 10,95,173/- to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court directed payment of interest as per the entitlement established in the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 724 of 2021 and batch of cases dated 12.10.2023. The payment was to be made within two months from the receipt of a copy of the order. The Court also clarified that if the petitioner was entitled to any higher amount than claimed, that amount should also be paid. The Court noted that the order was limited to the amount claimed by the petitioner but did not disentitle the petitioner from claiming a higher amount if entitled. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, Ravi Subba Rao, filed a writ petition seeking payment of a final bill amount of Rs. 10,95,173/- for work executed under an agreement dated 15.05.2023. The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting entitlement to the amount, payment was withheld, which was arbitrary. The respondents, through the learned Assistant Government Pleader, admitted the claim and provided written instructions from the Executive Engineer. These instructions detailed the work done, the estimated contract value of Rs. 11,94,726/-, and the value of work done as Rs. 12,93,549/-, including GST. The reason provided for non-payment was the non-availability of funds, with a promise of payment upon fund release. The Court noted a discrepancy between the petitioner's claimed amount and the gross amount payable as per the written instructions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of the final bill amount of Rs. 10,95,173/- is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, requiring interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the non-payment of the admitted amount was arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. The petitioner sought a direction for payment of the amount along with interest at 24% per annum. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, while admitting the petitioner's claim, submitted that the non-payment was due to the non-availability of funds and assured that payment would be made upon the release of funds by the Government. They did not dispute the entitlement to the amount.