Pasupula Food PVT LTD vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the respondents had not disputed the supply of material by the petitioner. Given this admission, the Court found the writ petition to be disposed of with a specific direction. The respondents were directed to pay the admitted amount of Rs. 11,05,671/- to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court further stipulated that if the payment was not made within the stipulated period, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order of the Writ Petition until the date of realization. The Court made no order as to costs. No specific issue regarding GST was discussed or decided, and the amount stated in the facts did not explicitly mention GST as a separate component of the disputed sum.

Facts

The petitioner, Pasupula Food Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay Rs. 11,05,671/- for the supply of 111 outdoor play material kits. The petitioner had supplied the material as per tender vide proceedings of the 4th respondent dated April 29, 2021. Despite repeated requests, payment was not made. The respondents, in their written instructions dated September 27, 2024, admitted the supply of material but stated that payment could not be made due to fund retrieval by the State Office for year-end activities. They further indicated that a letter was sent to the State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, Andhra Pradesh, to release the pending amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not making payment for the supplied outdoor play material kits, amounting to Rs. 11,05,671/-, is arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the non-payment for the goods supplied, despite fulfilling their contractual obligation, is arbitrary and infringes upon their fundamental right to carry on their trade or business under Article 19(1)(g). They sought a mandamus directing the respondents to release the payment. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through their written instructions, admitted the supply of material and the outstanding amount. They attributed the delay in payment to administrative reasons, specifically the retrieval of funds by the State Office due to year-end activities, and stated that efforts were underway to secure fund release from the State Project Director.