Nekkalapu Vasantha Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Apradesh

Held

The Court held that the non-payment of admitted dues was arbitrary, aligning with its previous pronouncements. The Court acknowledged the respondents' submission regarding insufficient budget and the need to upload bills in the CFMS portal. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to release the total amount of Rs.8,78,053/- (sum of Rs.1,90,206/-, Rs.1,00,486/-, Rs.3,16,986/-, and Rs.2,60,375/-) to the petitioner. This payment was to include interest at 6% per annum. The release of funds was made conditional upon the petitioner furnishing GST particulars, referencing a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021 and batch dated 12.10.2023. The Court also granted the petitioner liberty to pursue a claim for a higher rate of interest in an appropriate forum. The directions were to be complied with within two months from the receipt of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Nekkalapu Vasantha Rao, was awarded a contract for works under a scheme in Eluru District. Upon execution, final bills were prepared for sums of Rs.1,90,206/-, Rs.1,00,486/-, Rs.3,16,986/-, and Rs.2,60,375/-. The petitioner approached the High Court as these amounts remained unpaid. The petitioner contended that the respondents admitted the entitlement to payment but failed to disburse the funds, which was arbitrary. The respondents, through the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the claim but stated that the final bills were not uploaded in the CFMS portal due to insufficient budget. Instructions were placed on record from the Executive Engineer, Eluru, dated 27.04.2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the non-payment of admitted dues to the petitioner for executed works is arbitrary and requires interference by this Court, considering the petitioner's contention that the respondents admitted entitlement but failed to pay. 2. Whether the respondents' stated reason of insufficient budget and non-uploading of final bills in the CFMS portal justifies the delay in payment, and if so, what is the appropriate direction to be issued. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-payment of admitted dues was arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating court intervention. The petitioner relied on previous orders of the Court, including a learned Single Judge's order dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch, which held such non-payment as arbitrary and requiring prompt clearance. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation admitted the petitioner's claim but submitted that the final bills were not uploaded in the CFMS portal due to insufficient budget. The respondents indicated that payment would be processed upon uploading the bills.