Nadimpalli Venkat Raju vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the non-payment of dues by the respondents was arbitrary, aligning with its previous judgments, including a Single Judge's order in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch. The Court directed the respondents to release the principal amount of Rs. 19,21,221/- to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court directed 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. This payment was to be made within six weeks from the receipt of the order. The Court also noted that it was open for the petitioner to pursue a claim for a higher rate of interest in an appropriate forum. The issue of the specific rate of GST was not explicitly decided, but the petitioner's claim included 12% GST, and the final direction was to release the amount with 6% interest.

Facts

The petitioner, Nadimpalli Venkat Raju, a contractor, filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the inaction of the State respondents in not releasing payments for works executed under three agreements (No. 38 of 2021-22, No. 39 of 2021-22, and No. 77 of 2022-23). The total disputed amount for these works was Rs. 19,21,221/-, which the petitioner claimed should include 12% GST and interest from the completion date. The petitioner contended that the non-payment was arbitrary and illegal. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the claim but cited the non-release of LOG (Letter of Guarantee) as the reason for the delay, assuring payment upon its release and uploading bills on the GEMS portal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in withholding payment of Rs. 19,21,221/- for the executed works, along with 12% GST and interest, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents admitted the entitlement to payment but failed to release it, constituting arbitrary and high-handed action requiring judicial intervention. They sought the release of the principal amount with 12% GST and interest. Respondents' arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation admitted the petitioner's claim but explained that payment was delayed due to the non-release of LOG. They assured that payments would be made soon after the release of LOG and uploading of bills on the GEMS portal. No specific statutory provisions or precedents were cited by the respondents.