Yerukala Ramanjaneyulu vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the non-payment of the admitted dues was arbitrary and directed the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 6,82,283/- to the petitioner. The Court also directed the payment of interest at 6% per annum, referencing a Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021 and batch dated 12.10.2023. This payment was to be made within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order, subject to the petitioner furnishing GST particulars. The Court clarified that it would be open for the petitioner to pursue a claim for a higher rate of interest in an appropriate forum. The reasoning was based on the established principle that admitted dues should be paid promptly and that prolonged non-payment constitutes arbitrary action, as supported by previous High Court pronouncements. The ratio decidendi is that admitted contractual payments withheld without valid justification are amenable to writ jurisdiction, and interest is payable on such delayed payments.

Facts

The petitioner, Yerukala Ramanjaneyulu, was awarded a contract for works in Kurnool District. Following the execution of the contract, a final bill for Rs. 6,82,283/- was prepared. The petitioner approached the High Court as the respondents had not made the payment. The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting the entitlement to the sum, payment was being withheld arbitrarily. The respondents, through the learned Government Pleader, admitted the petitioner's claim and submitted instructions indicating that payment would be processed soon after the release of the Letter of Credit (LOC). The court noted previous judgments where non-payment of dues was deemed arbitrary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the non-payment of the final bill amount of Rs. 6,82,283/- by the respondents to the petitioner, despite admission of entitlement, constitutes arbitrary and high-handed action requiring the High Court's intervention under its writ jurisdiction? The petitioner argued that the prolonged non-payment, even after the respondents acknowledged the debt, was arbitrary and necessitated judicial intervention. The petitioner relied on previous orders of the High Court, including a 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. The respondents, represented by the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the petitioner's claim. They placed on record instructions from the Executive Engineer, TBP Division, Adoni, dated 06.03.2024, stating that payment would be processed soon after the release of the LOC. The respondents did not contest the petitioner's entitlement but indicated a procedural delay.