M/S Ideal Survey vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court noted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance. The respondents, upon written instructions, stated that the amount of Rs. 7,27,170/- would be paid soon after the government releases the additional budget. They also indicated that the bill would be re-uploaded in CFMS after receipt of budget allocation and sought time for eight weeks for payment. The Court, in view of these submissions and the stated circumstances, directed the respondents to release the aforementioned amount of Rs. 7,27,170/- by complying with all formalities as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The written instructions dated 02.05.2024 were made part of the Court record. The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ideal Survey, filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the inaction of the respondents in not paying an amount of Rs. 7,27,170/- for works undertaken by the petitioner. These works included conducting DGPS survey, geo-technical investigation, alignment, fixing and soil classification, designing, detailing estimation, and preparation of Detailed Project Reports (DPR) for proposed lift irrigation schemes identified by APSIDC in Andhra Pradesh, specifically mentioning the Penuganuchiprolu LI Scheme. The respondents, including the State of Andhra Pradesh and APSIDC Ltd., through their counsel, submitted that the payment would be made soon after the government releases the additional budget. They requested time for eight weeks to process the payment and re-upload the bill in CFMS after receiving budget allocation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have a legal obligation to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 7,27,170/- to the petitioner for the completed survey and DPR works, as per the terms of engagement and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime? (This issue is framed as a question of mixed law and fact, turning on contract law and potentially GST implications if any tax was due but not paid or accounted for). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the amount of Rs. 7,27,170/- is payable for the works executed and submitted, and the respondents' failure to pay constitutes a breach of their obligation. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, represented by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance, submitted that the payment is contingent upon the release of an additional budget by the government. They sought time for payment, indicating procedural delays rather than a dispute over the liability itself.