Manasa Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 19,89,942/- to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the order. The Court also directed that the petitioner be paid interest as per their entitlement, referencing a Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No. 724 of 2021 and batch cases dated 12.10.2023. The Court clarified that if the petitioner is entitled to a higher amount, that shall also be paid. The petitioner was given the liberty to agitate any claim for a higher rate of interest before an appropriate forum. The Court made no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Manasa Constructions, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents (State of Andhra Pradesh and others) to release the final bill amount of Rs. 19,89,942/-, which includes GST of Rs. 4,44,406/-, for O & M works under an irrigation department agreement (Agreement No. 106/2023-24, dated 16-03-2024). The petitioner contended that despite the completion of the work and admission of entitlement by the respondents, the payment was withheld, causing financial loss. The respondents, through the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the claim but stated that the bills were not uploaded in CFMS due to a lack of LOC (Letter of Credit) and assured payment upon its release. The court noted a discrepancy between the petitioner's claimed amount and the gross amount payable mentioned in the instructions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondents in releasing the final bill amount of Rs. 19,89,942/- to the petitioner, despite the completion of work and admitted entitlement, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-payment of the admitted amount is arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. They sought a direction for the immediate release of the final bills and interest. Respondents' arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation admitted the petitioner's claim but explained that the delay in payment was due to the non-uploading of bills in CFMS owing to a lack of LOC. They assured that payment would be made promptly after the release of the LOC and prayed for appropriate orders.