Pooja Constructions vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 13,39,277/- to the petitioner. The Court also directed that interest be paid to the petitioner as per the entitlement determined by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 724 of 2021 and batch of cases dated 12.10.2023. This payment was to be made within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court noted that the petitioner was at liberty to pursue their claim for a higher rate of interest before an appropriate forum. The Court did not decide on the issue of the higher rate of interest, leaving it open for the petitioner to agitate separately.

Facts

The petitioner, Pooja Constructions, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents (State of AP and others) to release the final bill amount of Rs. 13,39,277/- for work executed under O & M Neeru- the Kakumanu Mandal in Guntur District. The petitioner contended that the non-payment was arbitrary and high-handed, despite the respondents admitting entitlement. The Government Pleader for Irrigation, while admitting the claim, submitted written instructions stating that payment was delayed due to non-availability of funds. The written instructions indicated the total value of work done as Rs. 15,81,928/-, including work done, NAC, and GST, with the bill recorded in measurement book No. 5350 KW.

Key Issues

1. Whether the withholding of the final bill payment of Rs. 13,39,277/- by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting a writ of mandamus? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' admitted entitlement to the amount coupled with non-payment constituted arbitrary and high-handed action, necessitating judicial intervention. They sought the release of the amount along with interest at 24% per annum. Respondents' contention: The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation admitted the petitioner's claim but attributed the delay in payment to the non-availability of funds. They submitted that payments would be made upon the release of funds by the government. The respondents relied on written instructions from the Executive Engineer, K.W. Division, Tenali.