Turaka Raja vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondents to release the total amount of Rs. 3,82,248/-, along with the incidental amounts (NAC Rs. 382/- and GST Rs. 45,916/-), to the petitioner within two months of receiving the order. 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 12.10.2023. The Court clarified that it would be open for the petitioner to pursue the claim for a higher rate of interest before an appropriate forum. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, Turaka Raja, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to release a balance payment of Rs. 3,82,248/- for works executed under Agreement No. 12 KW/2022-23. The works involved O&M repairs and weed removal in various channels. The petitioner contended that the respondents admitted the entitlement to the amount but failed to make the payment, deeming it arbitrary. The respondents, through the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the claim and stated that the total value of work done was Rs. 4,28,546/-, which included Rs. 3,82,248/- for work done, Rs. 382/- for NAC, and Rs. 45,916/- for GST. The delay in payment was attributed to the non-availability of funds, with an assurance that payment would be made upon fund release.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in withholding the balance payment of Rs. 3,82,248/- to the petitioner, despite admitting the entitlement, is illegal and arbitrary, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment, and if so, at what rate? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the non-release of admitted dues was arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. The petitioner sought the release of the principal amount along with interest at 24% per annum for the delayed period. Respondents' Contentions: The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation admitted the petitioner's claim and confirmed the total work value, including GST. The respondents attributed the delay in payment to the non-availability of funds and assured that payment would be processed once funds were released by the government. The respondents did not specifically contest the petitioner's claim for interest but sought an appropriate order.