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. 10,19,150/- to the petitioner within two months from the date of receiving the order. This direction was based on the entitlement of the petitioner as per the work done and the Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No. 724 of 2021 and batch cases dated 12.10.2023. The Court also noted that if the petitioner was entitled to any higher amount, that would also be paid. The reasoning was that the respondents admitted the petitioner's entitlement and the work completion, with the only stated reason for non-payment being the non-availability of funds. The Court found the non-payment, in the circumstances, to be a matter requiring its intervention. The ratio decidendi is that a government entity cannot arbitrarily withhold admitted payments due to a contractor, especially when the delay is solely due to internal fund management issues, and such withholding can be remedied through a writ of mandamus. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Shaik Jani, entered into a work agreement (No. 38KW/2023-24 dated 25.07.2023) with the State of Andhra Pradesh for spraying chemicals on weed growth in the Kollipara channel. The petitioner completed the work and submitted a first and final bill for Rs. 10,19,150/- out of a gross amount of Rs. 13,58,867/-. The respondents admitted the petitioner's entitlement to the amount but failed to make the payment. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the outstanding bill, alleging illegality and arbitrariness in the non-payment. The respondents, through the Executive Engineer, K.W. Division, Tenali, submitted instructions stating that the work was completed and the bill recorded, but payment was delayed due to non-availability of funds, assuring payment upon fund release.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not paying the first and final bill of Rs. 10,19,150/- to the petitioner, despite admitting entitlement, is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the non-payment of the admitted amount was arbitrary and high-handed, warranting judicial interference. Respondents' arguments: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, while admitting the petitioner's claim, placed on record instructions from the Executive Engineer stating that the work was completed and the bill recorded. The delay in payment was attributed to the non-availability of funds, with an assurance of payment once funds are released by the government. The respondents did not contest the entitlement to the amount or raise any specific objections to the bill itself.