O Peeraiah vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court directed the respondents to clear the admitted amount payable to the petitioner, along with interest at 6% per annum, within six weeks from the date of receiving the order. This direction was based on a Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021 and batch dated 12.10.2023. The Court further stipulated that if payment was not made within the stipulated period, the bill amounts would carry interest at 12% per annum until actual payment. It was clarified that the withheld amount and other deposits would be released without attracting any interest, as the defect liability period had already expired as per the agreement. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus against the respondents for their failure to pay the final bill, withheld amount, and other deposits related to the execution of a work under a scheme. The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting entitlement to the payment, no amount was being disbursed, which was deemed arbitrary. The respondents, through written instructions from the Executive Engineer, Kadapa, stated that the bill was awaiting government approval and would be paid thereafter. The Court noted previous judgments on similar non-payment issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in withholding the admitted final bill amount, withheld amount, and other deposits payable to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? 2. What is the appropriate interest rate to be applied to the admitted amount payable to the petitioner, considering the delay in payment? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the non-payment of admitted dues was arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. The petitioner relied on this Court's previous orders, including a learned 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. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through the Executive Engineer, Kadapa, submitted written instructions stating that the bill was pending government approval and would be paid upon such approval. No specific argument was recorded against the petitioner's claim for admitted dues.