Y V Chowdary vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondents to release the total amount of Rs. 4,23,043/- to the petitioner. The Court also directed the release of Rs. 22,197/-, if the petitioner was entitled to it, or the higher amount the petitioner was entitled to. Furthermore, the Court ordered the payment of interest as per the entitlement, referencing the judgment of 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 of receiving a copy of the order. The Court clarified that it was open to the petitioner to pursue their claim for a higher rate of interest before an appropriate forum. The issue of the exact quantum of GST and its impact on the final payable amount, beyond what was acknowledged in the written instructions, was not expressly decided, but the direction was to release the admitted amounts and interest.

Facts

The petitioner, Y V Chowdary, filed a writ petition seeking release of payment for works executed under agreement No. 15KW/2022-23. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 4,23,043/- for O and M Repairs for weed removal in various channels. The petitioner contended that despite admission of entitlement, payment was not released, which was arbitrary. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the claim and stated that the value of work done was Rs. 4,45,960/-, including GST of Rs. 47,781/-. They attributed the non-payment to a non-availability of funds and assured payment upon release of funds. The court noted a discrepancy between the petitioner's claimed amount and the gross amount stated by the respondents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in withholding payment for works executed by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, concerning the non-release of Rs. 4,23,043/-. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-payment of admitted dues was arbitrary and high-handed, warranting judicial interference. They sought the release of Rs. 4,23,043/- along with interest. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through the Government Pleader, admitted the petitioner's claim and the value of work done. They attributed the delay in payment to the non-availability of funds and assured that payment would be made once funds were released. They did not explicitly argue against the entitlement to interest but stated that payment would be made upon fund availability.