Kambapu Surya Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, following a previous order in similar circumstances. The respondents were directed to finalize the amounts payable to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of the order and to pay the due amounts within six weeks thereafter. The petitioner was also directed to submit his GST Number if called upon by the respondents for the purpose of payment. The Court explicitly stated that it would be open for the petitioner to agitate his rights for payment of interest in an appropriate forum. The issue of interest was expressly left undecided in this writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that a party who has performed contract work is entitled to payment of the principal amount, and the authorities cannot withhold such payment indefinitely, though the claim for interest may need to be pursued separately.

Facts

The petitioner, who executed a contract for construction work for Rs. 8,45,439/-, approached the High Court via a writ petition as the dues were not paid. The petitioner had submitted a bill for the work done under an agreement dated 06.02.2019. The petitioner was directed to submit his GST Number. The Court referred to a previous order by a learned Single Judge on 08.02.2022 in W.P.No.3074 of 2022, which directed payment of the principal amount of the bill while leaving the issue of interest open to be agitated by the petitioner. The present writ petition followed similar circumstances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the principal amount of the bill raised by the petitioner for the contract work executed, considering the non-payment of dues. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to receive the payment for the contract work executed, as evidenced by the agreement and the bill raised. They relied on the principle of quantum meruit and the general obligation of a party to pay for services rendered. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's direction to pay the principal amount implies that the respondents' inaction or refusal to pay was not legally tenable for the principal sum.