K Ramamurthy Naidu vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

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 judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court 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 also clarified that after payment of the admitted amount and interest, the EMD and other deposits would be released to the petitioner without attracting any interest, as the defect liability period had already concluded as per the agreement. The Writ Petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the final bill, Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), and other deposits related to the execution of a work under a scheme. The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting entitlement to payment, no payment was being made, deeming it arbitrary and high-handed. The respondents, through the Executive Engineer, Kadapa, submitted written instructions stating that the bill was awaiting government approval and would be paid thereafter. The Court noted its previous orders, including a Single Judge's order dated 05.10.2021, which held non-payment of dues as arbitrary and requiring prompt clearance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in not paying the final bill, EMD, and other deposits to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-payment of admitted dues was arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. They relied on previous orders of the Court, including a learned Single Judge's judgment in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch, which had taken a similar view on non-payment of dues. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through the Executive Engineer, Kadapa, submitted that the bill was pending government approval and that payment would be made once approval was obtained. They did not contest the petitioner's entitlement to the admitted amount.