Yerupudi Anjaneyulu vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the non-payment of admitted contractual dues by the respondents was indeed arbitrary, aligning with its previous pronouncements. The Court acknowledged the respondents' submission that part payment had been made and the remaining amount would be paid soon. Based on the admitted claim and the principle of prompt payment of contractual dues, the Court directed the respondents to release the remaining payment of Rs. 10,40,735/- to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court directed the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on this amount, citing the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021 and batch dated 12.10.2023. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue a claim for a higher rate of interest in an appropriate forum. The entire payment, including interest, was to be made within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Yerupudi Anjaneyulu, was awarded a contract for works in Krishna District. Upon execution, a final bill of Rs. 14,94,774/- was prepared. The petitioner approached the High Court as the respondents had not made the payment. The petitioner contended that despite admitting the entitlement to payment, the respondents were arbitrarily withholding the funds. The respondents, through the Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the petitioner's claim and stated that Rs. 4,91,108/- had been paid, with the remaining Rs. 10,40,735/- to be paid soon after the release of the Letter of Credit (LOC). The tax period is not specified.

Key Issues

1. Whether the non-payment of the admitted contractual dues by the respondents is arbitrary and warrants interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the respondents are liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of contractual dues, and if so, at what rate, in light of the petitioner's claim and the cited precedents? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to make the admitted payment was arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. They relied on previous orders of the Court, including a Single Judge's order dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch, which held similar non-payments as arbitrary and requiring prompt clearance. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation admitted the petitioner's claim and provided an update on the payment status, indicating partial payment and a commitment to pay the balance soon. They did not explicitly contest the petitioner's claim of arbitrariness but provided reasons for the delay. They also implicitly acknowledged the potential for interest payment by referring to a Division Bench judgment.