B Ramanjaneyulu vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the impugned memo dated May 17, 2024, issued by Respondent No. 3, comes in the way of the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.94 dated August 10, 2018. The Court found that the respondents' counter and the Government Pleader's contentions indicated that the memo would impede the proper execution of the G.O. Therefore, the Court directed the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.94 and the consequential agreement entered into by the petitioner. Pending bills were to be finalized for releasing the balance amount in accordance with law, without reference to the impugned memo. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle that a subordinate communication (memo) cannot override a superior executive order (G.O.), as established in the cited precedent. The ratio decidendi is that executive instructions must align with and not contradict existing Government Orders, and payments must strictly adhere to the stipulated terms for work completed.

Facts

The petitioner, B Ramanjaneyulu, filed a writ petition challenging a memo dated May 17, 2024, issued by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner contended that this memo contravened G.O.Ms.No.94 dated August 10, 2018, which governs payment terms for pipeline works. The petitioner had entered into an agreement based on this G.O. and executed the work. However, their bills remained unsettled due to the impugned memo. The petitioner argued that the memo, being a mere communication, could not supersede the earlier Government Order. The respondents, through the Government Pleader, argued that the memo was a clarification to ensure payments were made only for work done, citing Article 177 of the Financial Code and instances of incorrect payments. They maintained the memo did not modify G.O.Ms.No.94 but aimed to implement it correctly.

Key Issues

1. Whether Memo No.AEE/DEE1/QA&QC/RWS&S dated May 17, 2024, issued by Respondent No. 3, is legally valid and can supersede or deviate from the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.94 dated August 10, 2018, issued by Respondent No. 1, concerning the payment schedule for pipeline works? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned memo, being a mere communication, cannot supersede an earlier Government Order (G.O.). They relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in W.P.Nos.13865 of 2020 and batch dated February 23, 2021, which held that a memo cannot supersede a G.O. The petitioner asserted that G.O.Ms.No.94 clearly outlines the payment components and schedule, and the memo creates an unnecessary clarification that hinders the implementation of the G.O. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through the Government Pleader, contended that the impugned memo was issued as a clarification to ensure adherence to G.O.Ms.No.94 and to prevent payments for work not yet executed. They cited Article 177 of the Financial Code, which mandates that payments should only be made for work done. They argued that the memo did not modify the G.O. but rather clarified its implementation, citing instances where payments were being recommended on the finished cost without the work being completed.