Bandla Madhu vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 8,91,351/- to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the order. The Court also noted that the petitioner claimed Rs. 8,91,351/-, and the respondents' written instructions detailed the components of this amount, including work done, NAC, and GST. The specific amounts for the two works were Rs. 7,51,193/- and Rs. 1,40,158/-. The Court's direction implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's entitlement to the claimed amount, and the reasoning focused on the need for timely payment for executed work, despite the stated reason for delay being fund availability. The operative direction was to release the specified sum. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Bandla Madhu, filed a writ petition seeking payment of Rs. 8,91,351/- for works executed. These works included O&M repairs to shutters of the duggirala Lock chamber (amounting to Rs. 7,51,193/- for the year 2023-24) and O&M repairs to shutters of Mulapalem Head Sluice (amounting to Rs. 1,40,158/-). The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting the entitlement to the amount, payment was withheld, which was arbitrary. The respondents, through the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the claim but stated that the bills were pending due to non-availability of funds. Written instructions from the Executive Engineer indicated that funds were expected to be released soon, after which the bills would be cleared.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of Rs. 8,91,351/- for works executed by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, and against Article 21 of the Constitution of India? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and constitutional rights). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-payment of admitted dues was arbitrary and high-handed, warranting the High Court's intervention. They sought a direction for the release of the full amount claimed. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, while admitting the petitioner's claim, submitted that the delay in payment was solely due to the non-availability of funds. They assured that the bills would be cleared upon the release of funds and prayed for appropriate orders.