Shaik Jani vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 5,57,021/- to the petitioner within two months from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The Court also noted that if the petitioner was entitled to any higher amount, that would also be paid as per entitlement. The Court's decision was based on the admitted claim of the petitioner and the respondents' acknowledgment of the work done and the amount due, with the delay attributed solely to fund availability. The Court referenced a Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No. 724 of 2021 and batch of cases dated 12.10.2023 as a basis for directing payment as per entitlement. No costs were awarded. The issue of the GST amount of Rs. 1,00,364/- was not explicitly decided upon, but the direction was to pay the admitted bill amount of Rs. 5,57,021/-.

Facts

The petitioner, Shaik Jani, filed a writ petition seeking payment of Rs. 5,57,021/- for work done under Work Agreement No. 62/2023-24, dated 14.08.2023. The work involved repairs to lock chamber gates and regulators in Bapatla District. The petitioner contended that the respondents admitted the amount due but had failed to make the payment, which was arbitrary. The respondents, through the learned Assistant Government Pleader, admitted the claim and provided instructions from the Executive Engineer. These instructions stated that the total value of work done was Rs. 6,57,942/-, comprising Rs. 5,57,021/- for work done, Rs. 557/- for NAC, and Rs. 1,00,364/- for GST. The work was completed on 10.01.2024. The non-payment was attributed to the non-availability of funds, with an assurance that payment would be made upon fund release.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in withholding payment of the admitted LS-I and final bill amount of Rs. 5,57,021/- for the completed work is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that despite the respondents admitting the entitlement to the payment, the non-payment was arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. The petitioner sought a direction for the immediate payment of the admitted bill amount. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the Executive Engineer's instructions, admitted the value of work done and the amount of GST. They stated that the bill was not paid due to the non-availability of funds and assured payment upon the release of funds by the Government. They did not dispute the petitioner's entitlement to the amount claimed.