Reppale Indira Devi vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the non-payment of admitted contractual dues by the respondents was arbitrary. Citing its own previous orders, including a learned Single Judge's judgment in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch, the Court found that such non-payment requires prompt clearance. The Court also took into consideration a Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021 and batch dated 12.10.2023 regarding interest. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to release the admitted amount of Rs. 15,81,482/- to the petitioner. Additionally, the Court directed the payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The petitioner was also granted liberty to agitate for a higher rate of interest, if payable, in an appropriate forum. The respondents were given a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order to comply with the directions. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, Reppale Indira Devi, was awarded contract works under a scheme in Bapatla District. Upon completion, final bills were prepared for a total sum of Rs. 15,81,482/-. The petitioner approached the High Court as the respondents had not made the payment. The petitioner contended that the non-payment was arbitrary. The respondents, through Respondent No. 6, admitted the claim but stated that payment was delayed due to the non-release of budget by the Government. They assured payment upon budget release. The Court considered previous judgments on similar non-payment issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the non-payment of the admitted contractual dues to the petitioner by the respondents is arbitrary and warrants interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that despite the respondents admitting the entitlement to the sum of Rs. 15,81,482/-, the continued non-payment is arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. The petitioner relied on previous orders of the Court, including a learned Single Judge's judgment in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch, which held such non-payment as arbitrary and requiring prompt clearance. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through Respondent No. 6, admitted the petitioner's claim. However, they attributed the delay in payment to the non-release of the budget by the Government. They submitted that payment would be made to the petitioner soon after the budget is released. The respondents did not rely on any specific statutory provisions or precedents in their submission regarding the delay.