G.Chenchu Krishnama Naidu vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the respondents' action in not paying the bill amount to the petitioner was unjust and not tenable, given the undisputed position regarding the execution of works and the non-payment. While acknowledging the delay, the Court was inclined to grant time to the respondents to make the payment. The Court directed the respondents to arrange for the payment of the amount/bills due to the petitioner for the works in question, after effecting statutory deductions, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that government authorities must ensure timely payment for completed works and cannot indefinitely delay payments due to internal procedural bottlenecks like BRO release, especially when such delays cause financial hardship to contractors. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, G. Chenchu Krishnama Naidu, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' inaction in releasing withheld amounts, including GST, Security Deposit (FSD), and Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), after the completion of subject matter works. The petitioner contended that the works were completed to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, but the bills remained unpaid, causing financial hardship. The respondents, represented by the State of Andhra Pradesh through its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department and others, submitted written instructions indicating that the delay in payment was due to the non-release of BRO (Budget Release Order) by the Government. They assured that upon release of BRO, the bills would be processed for payment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in withholding and delaying the release of GST, Security Deposit (FSD), and Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) amounts for completed works is illegal and arbitrary, violating the petitioner's right to timely payment? The petitioner argued that the works were completed satisfactorily and the delay in payment was causing financial distress. The petitioner sought a direction for the release of all due amounts. The respondents, through written instructions, stated that the delay was attributable to the non-release of BRO by the Government. They contended that regular requisitions were being submitted for the release of BRO and that payment would be arranged soon after its release. The respondents did not dispute the execution of works or the pendency of bills.