S.V.V.Rambabu vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by issuing a direction to the respondents to take necessary steps for the payment of the remaining 21 unpaid bills as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim for interest but advised the petitioner to raise this claim before the appropriate forum if they were so advised. The Court did not make any specific finding on the illegality or arbitrariness of the respondents' action beyond directing prompt payment. The issue of GST and interest was implicitly addressed by directing payment of the bills, with the interest component to be pursued separately. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed or interpreted, as the dispute primarily concerned the payment of contractual dues.

Facts

The petitioner, S.V.V. Rambabu, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents, including the State of Andhra Pradesh and its Irrigation Department officials, to pay bills for 27 works executed under various agreements. The total value of these works was Rs. 2,18,92,453/-, with an agreed GST of 12%. The petitioner also claimed interest from the date of completion of the works. The petitioner contended that the respondents' inaction in paying the bills was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The respondents, through the Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, submitted written instructions stating that 6 out of the 27 bills had been cleared, and payment for the remaining bills would take time. They requested four months to process the payments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' failure to pay the bills for the executed works, totaling Rs. 2,18,92,453/- with 12% GST, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents' inaction in paying the bills for the 27 works was illegal and arbitrary. They contended that this delay violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including the right to carry on business (Article 19(1)(g)) and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), which encompasses the right to livelihood. The petitioner also asserted that the delay breached the principles of natural justice by not fulfilling contractual obligations promptly. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents did not contest the validity of the bills or the works executed. Their primary submission was that out of the 27 bills, 6 had already been cleared. For the remaining 21 bills, they stated that processing payments would take time and requested a period of four months to complete the necessary actions for payment.