S V V Rambabu vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the non-payment of the admitted amount of Rs.43,15,122/- to the petitioner was arbitrary, aligning with its previous pronouncements. The Court directed the respondents to release the principal amount of Rs.43,15,122/- to the petitioner. Additionally, the Court ordered the payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum, referencing a Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021 and batch dated 12.10.2023. The payment was to be made within six weeks from the receipt of the order. The Court also clarified that it would be open for the petitioner to pursue a claim for a higher rate of interest, if applicable, in an appropriate forum. No costs were awarded. The ratio decidendi is that admitted contractual dues, if not paid without valid justification, constitute arbitrary action by the State, and interest is payable on such delayed payments.

Facts

The petitioner, who had been awarded contract works in West Godavari District, approached the High Court by way of a writ petition seeking payment of Rs.43,15,122/- for executed work, for which a final bill was prepared. The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting the entitlement to the payment, no amount was being disbursed, which was arbitrary. The respondents, through the learned Government Pleader, admitted the claim but stated that payment was delayed due to non-release of budget by the Government. They assured that payment would be made soon after budget release. The Court noted its previous orders, including a learned Single Judge's order dated 05.10.2021, which held non-payment of dues as arbitrary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the non-payment of Rs.43,15,122/- by the respondents to the petitioner for completed contract works is arbitrary and requires the interference of this Court, as per the principles laid down in previous High Court orders? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents admitted the entitlement to the payment, yet failed to disburse the amount, constituting arbitrary and high-handed action. They relied on previous orders of the High Court, including a learned Single Judge's judgment in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch, which held such non-payment as arbitrary. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation admitted the petitioner's claim but attributed the delay in payment to the non-release of budget by the Government. They assured that the bills would be paid upon the release of the budget/LOC. No specific statutory provisions or precedents were cited by the revenue.