Tammineni Bala Narasimhulu vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition. It directed the respondents to release the total admitted amount of Rs. 5,75,063/- to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim for higher interest but left it open for the petitioner to agitate this claim before an appropriate forum. The Court noted that the respondents had admitted the petitioner's entitlement to the amount and that the delay was attributed to budgetary constraints. The primary finding was that the admitted amount should be released promptly. The ratio decidendi is that admitted financial claims, even if subject to procedural delays like budget allocation, should be released within a reasonable timeframe as directed by the High Court, and continued withholding without justification can be deemed arbitrary.

Facts

The petitioner, Tammineni Bala Narasimhulu, filed a writ petition seeking the release of withheld amounts, including 2.5% of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), 7.5% of withheld amounts, and 12% of Goods and Services Tax (GST), totaling Rs. 5,75,063/-. These amounts pertain to three different M Book entries (No. 1864 M.l, 2260 M.l, and 1887 M.I). The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting the entitlement to the amount, payment was not made, constituting arbitrary and high-handed action. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the claim and submitted instructions from the Executive Engineer, Kurnool, stating that the budget had not yet been released. They assured that payments would be made through CFMS upon receipt of the budget.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in withholding the release of Rs. 5,75,063/-, comprising EMD, withheld amounts, and GST, is arbitrary and requires interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in light of the admitted entitlement of the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-release of the admitted amounts is arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. They relied on the principle that admitted liabilities should be discharged promptly. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, while admitting the petitioner's claim, submitted that the delay in payment was due to the non-release of the budget from the government. They assured that payments would be processed once the budget is received and prayed for appropriate orders, indicating a procedural delay rather than a dispute over the entitlement itself.