Reppale Indira Devi vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court found the respondents' action in not releasing the payment to be unjust and untenable, given the undisputed execution of work by the petitioner and the non-payment of the bill. However, the Court was inclined to grant time to the respondents to make the payment. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to arrange for the payment of the amount due to the petitioner, after effecting statutory deductions, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court also noted that the petitioner was free to raise a claim for the interest component before the appropriate forum if advised. The Court did not explicitly decide on the entitlement to 12% GST or interest, leaving the latter to be pursued separately.

Facts

The petitioner, Reppale Indira Devi, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the respondents' action in not paying the final bill amount of Rs.6,57,806/- for work executed under Agreement No.01/KW/2022-23, dated 08.06.2022, was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought consequential directions for payment of this amount along with 12% GST and interest. The respondents, represented by the State of Andhra Pradesh through its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, and other officials, submitted written instructions. These instructions indicated that the value of work done was Rs.7,29,097/-, completed in December 2022. The non-payment was attributed to the non-availability of funds, with an assurance that payment would be made upon release of funds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in withholding the final bill amount of Rs.6,57,806/- for work executed by the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary, and if so, what consequential directions should be issued? (Question of law and fact, concerning contractual obligations and payment due). The petitioner argued for the illegality and arbitrariness of the non-payment and sought directions for payment of the bill amount, 12% GST, and interest. The respondents, through their written instructions, acknowledged the work done and the outstanding bill, attributing the delay in payment to the non-availability of funds, and assured payment upon fund release. No specific legal provisions were explicitly debated by either side, but the core issue revolved around the respondents' obligation to pay for services rendered.