Narina Venkata Nagendra Kumar vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the respondents' action in not releasing the payment for the completed works was unjust and untenable, given the undisputed position regarding the execution of the work by the petitioner and the non-payment of the bills. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's plight and the delay on the part of the respondents. While the respondents cited the need for an LOC and budget as reasons for non-payment, the Court found these reasons insufficient to justify the continued withholding of the due amount. The Court directed the respondents to arrange for the payment of the amount due and payable to the petitioner, after effecting statutory deductions, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court explicitly stated that there was no dispute regarding the work executed and the approval of the final bill.

Facts

The petitioner, Narina Venkata Nagendra Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the release of a final bill amount of Rs. 27,65,667/- for irrigation works executed under four different agreements. The petitioner completed the works, which were inspected and quality checked, with entries made in the Measurement Book. The respondents approved the final bill, but payment was delayed, causing financial hardship to the petitioner. A counter-affidavit filed by the 5th respondent acknowledged the completion of works and stated that payment was pending due to the non-release of a Letter of Credit (LOC) and insufficient budget. The counter also mentioned that the GST amount would be reimbursed to the agency in the final bills soon after the release of the LOC.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in withholding the payment of the final bill amount of Rs. 27,65,667/- for the completed irrigation works is unjust and untenable, considering the undisputed execution of the work and the petitioner's repeated requests for payment. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the works were completed, approved, and the final bill was sanctioned, but payment was not released despite repeated requests, leading to severe financial crisis. The petitioner sought a direction for the release of the due amount. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through their counter-affidavit, did not dispute the execution of the work. However, they stated that payment was delayed due to the non-release of a Letter of Credit (LOC) and insufficient budget. They also indicated that the GST amount would be reimbursed upon release of the LOC.