B Ramanjineyulu vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the respondents' action in not releasing the payment was unjust and not tenable, given the undisputed execution of the works by the petitioner. While acknowledging the petitioner's entitlement to the payment, the Court was inclined to grant some time to the respondents to facilitate the process. The Court directed the respondents to arrange for the payment of the due amount to the petitioner, after effecting statutory deductions, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Regarding the claim for interest, the Court noted that the petitioner could raise such a claim before the appropriate forum if advised. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided but focused on ensuring payment within a stipulated timeframe.

Facts

The petitioner, B. Ramanjaneyulu, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' failure to release a bill amount of Rs. 2,61,990/- for SDF works executed under M. Book No. 2479/B/2018-19. The petitioner contended that the works were completed satisfactorily, but the payment was withheld, causing prejudice and irreparable loss. The respondents, represented by the State of Andhra Pradesh and its officials, submitted written instructions from the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Kurnool. These instructions indicated that a letter was sent to the DPO, Kurnool, to obtain the GST number of Cherukulapadu Gram Panchayat, Veldurthy Mandal, as it was a mandatory requirement to process the bill in CFMS-II.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in withholding the bill amount of Rs. 2,61,990/- for SDF works executed by the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice and the petitioner's entitlement to payment. (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of contract and payment obligations). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the works were completed to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, and therefore, the bills to which the petitioner was lawfully entitled should have been released. The withholding of payment resulted in serious prejudice and irreparable loss. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the written instructions, indicated that the delay in payment was due to the procedural requirement of obtaining the GST number of the Gram Panchayat, which was mandatory for processing the bill in CFMS-II. They relied on the necessity of this procedural step.