Tammineni Raj Sekhar Naidu vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It directed the respondents to release the total pending amount of Rs. 14,92,183/- to the petitioner within two months from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The Court acknowledged the submissions of both the petitioner and the respondents. While the respondents admitted the claim and cited budget release as the reason for delay, the Court found it appropriate to direct the release of the admitted amounts. The Court also clarified that it was open for the petitioner to pursue their claim for a higher rate of interest, if any payable, before an appropriate forum. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, Tammineni Raj Sekhar Naidu, filed a writ petition seeking the release of pending amounts totaling Rs. 14,92,183/-. This amount includes 2.5% of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), 7.5% of withheld amounts, and 12% of Goods and Services Tax (GST) across eight different M Book entries. The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting the entitlement to these funds, payment had not been made, constituting arbitrary and high-handed action. The respondents, represented by the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the petitioner's claim and submitted instructions from the Executive Engineer, Kurnool. They stated that the budget had not yet been released by the government, but payments would be processed through CFMS upon its receipt.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in withholding the release of pending amounts, including EMD, withheld amounts, and GST, totaling Rs. 14,92,183/-, is arbitrary and requires interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to release the admitted amounts, which include EMD, withheld portions of work payments, and GST, is arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. The petitioner highlighted that the respondents themselves acknowledged the petitioner's entitlement to the funds. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through the learned Government Pleader, admitted the petitioner's claim. They submitted that the delay in payment was due to the non-release of the budget from the government. They assured that payments would be made through the CFMS system once the budget was received and requested appropriate orders from the Court.