Kurra Rambabu vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 3,74,232/- to the petitioner, along with any further amount found payable. The Court also directed that interest be paid as per the entitlement, referencing a Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No. 724 of 2021 and batch of cases dated October 12, 2023. The payment is to be released within two months of receiving a copy of the order. The Court noted that the petitioner claimed Rs. 3,74,232/-, while the written instructions indicated a gross amount payable of Rs. 4,02,325/-. The order was limited to the amount claimed by the petitioner but did not preclude the petitioner from claiming a higher amount if entitled. The petitioner was given the liberty to pursue the claim for a higher rate of interest before an appropriate forum.

Facts

The petitioner, Kurra Rambabu, filed a writ petition seeking the release of payments for O&M repairs for weed growth in irrigation channels, based on an agreement dated August 11, 2023, for an amount of Rs. 3,74,232/-. The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting entitlement to the amount, no payment had been made, deeming the non-payment arbitrary. The Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitting the petitioner's claim, submitted written instructions from the Executive Engineer stating the total value of work done was Rs. 4,02,325/- (including GST), and bills were pending due to fund unavailability. The Executive Engineer assured that payments would be cleared upon fund release.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in withholding payment for works executed by the petitioner, despite admitting entitlement, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of Rs. 3,74,232/- for the executed works, along with interest for delayed payment? Petitioner's arguments: The respondents have admitted the petitioner's entitlement to the payment, but have failed to release it. This non-payment is arbitrary and high-handed, warranting judicial intervention. Respondents' arguments: The respondents admitted the petitioner's claim and the value of work done. However, the bills are pending due to non-availability of funds. Payments will be made once funds are released. The respondents relied on written instructions from the Executive Engineer.