B.Pardasaradi Reddy 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. This direction was based on a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court further stipulated that if payment was not made within the stipulated period, the bill amounts would attract interest at 12% per annum until actual payment. Additionally, the Court clarified that amounts withheld under Deposits (EMD/FSD etc.) should be released to the petitioner without attracting any interest, as the default defect liability period had already been completed as per the agreement. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' action of withholding payments and other deposits due for work executed under a scheme. The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting entitlement to the withheld amounts and other deposits, no payment was being made, which was deemed arbitrary. The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, attributed the non-payment to a lack of funds, assuring payment upon budget release. The Court considered previous judgments regarding non-payment of dues and the specific case of withheld deposits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents' action in withholding admitted payments and other deposits payable to the petitioner for work executed under the subject scheme is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, and if so, what relief should be granted? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-payment of admitted dues, despite acknowledgment of entitlement, was arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the delay in payment was solely due to the non-availability of funds, and payment would be made once the budget was released. They did not dispute the admitted amount payable.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.13051 of 2023 ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed to issue Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not paying the withheld amounts and other deposits, payable to the petitioner in relation to the execution of work under the subject scheme, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
It is the contention of the petitioner that even though the respondents admitted that the petitioner is entitled for payment of the withheld amounts along with other deposits, no payment is being made. The petitioner contends that such non-payment of money is clearly arbitrary and high-handed requiring the interference of this Court.
This Court, in various orders, including the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch had taken the view that such non-payment of dues is arbitrary and that such dues need to be cleared by the respondents at the earliest.
During hearing, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation filed counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.