K Shilpa vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondents to return the EMD and FSD along with GST to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court directed the respondents to pay interest on the amount payable for the work done, as per the entitlement established in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021 and batch of cases dated 12.10.2023. This payment is to be made within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court clarified that it is open to the petitioner to agitate the claim for a higher rate of interest, if any, before an appropriate forum. The Court made no order as to costs. The ratio decidendi is that the respondents are obligated to return security deposits and pay interest on work bills as per established legal principles and prior judicial pronouncements, and their inaction constitutes arbitrary conduct.

Facts

The petitioner, K. Shilpa, filed a writ petition seeking the return of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Full Security Deposit (FSD) along with GST and interest for works executed under the "Neeru Chettu" scheme. The works were related to Agreement No. 131/2018-19 and Agreement No. 106/2018-2019. The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting her entitlement to the amounts, no payment had been made, which she considered arbitrary. The respondents, represented by the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the petitioner's claim but stated that there was no representation from the petitioner for the release of deposits. The total amounts claimed for the works were Rs. 46,616/- and Rs. 45,870/-, respectively, with interest on the work bills.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in not returning the EMD and FSD along with GST and interest for works done by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional principles and G.O.R.T.No.266 dated 15-02-2021 and Memo No.1279341/FMU-WR.I/2020 dated 18-02-2021, and also violative of orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.724 of 2021? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of administrative law, contract law, and relevant government orders and judicial precedents). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the non-payment of admitted dues was arbitrary and high-handed, warranting court intervention. The petitioner relied on G.O.R.T.No.266 dated 15-02-2021, Memo No.1279341/FMU-WR.I/2020 dated 18-02-2021, and the orders of this Court in W.A.No.724 of 2021. Respondents' contentions: The respondents admitted the petitioner's claim but stated that no representation had been made by the petitioner for the release of deposits. They submitted the total amounts claimed for the works and interest on work bills.