Ketha Venkata Ramana Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the respondents' action in not releasing payments for the executed works was unjust and not tenable, given the undisputed execution of the works by the petitioner. The Court found the non-payment to be unreasonable. The ratio decidendi is that government authorities cannot arbitrarily withhold payments for completed works without valid justification, and such inaction is unsustainable. The Court directed the respondents to arrange for the payment of the amounts due and payable to the petitioner, after effecting statutory deductions, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. The Court explicitly left undecided the petitioner's claim for interest, advising the petitioner to raise such a claim before the appropriate forum if advised.

Facts

The petitioner, Ketha Venkata Ramana Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' inaction in paying bills for various works executed under six different agreements. The total outstanding amount claimed by the petitioner is Rs. 69,26,623/-. The petitioner contended that the works were completed, measurements recorded, and bills lawfully due were not released, causing prejudice. The respondents, represented by the State of Andhra Pradesh, submitted written instructions indicating that BRO proposals were sent for Head Office approval and payment would be cleared upon government release of BRO funds. The Court noted the undisputed execution of works and non-payment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in not paying the bills for the executed works, totaling Rs. 69,26,623/-, is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust, warranting a direction for payment under the relevant contractual and statutory provisions governing payments for government works? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the works were executed in all respects, measurements were recorded, and despite entitlement, the bills were not released, causing serious prejudice and irreparable loss. The petitioner sought a consequential direction for payment. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through written instructions, indicated that BRO proposals were submitted for approval and payment would be cleared once the government releases the BRO. They did not dispute the execution of works or the non-payment but cited procedural delays and dependency on government fund release.