Thrisan Solutions PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to payment for the developed android applications. Regarding the absence of a work order and invoice, the Court found that the petitioner had submitted cost estimations, and the respondents had initiated a process of evaluation through a technical committee and the SeMT. The SeMT's valuation of Rs. 47,03,000/- (excluding GST) was accepted by the Court as the normalized cost. The Court also found that the delay in the payment process originated from the respondents' side, citing the timeline of communications and evaluations. Therefore, the petitioner should not suffer for the respondents' delays. Consequently, the impugned Memo No. 12023/18/2018/AH1 dated September 7, 2018, was set aside, and the respondents were directed to pay the normalized cost of Rs. 47,03,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks. The issue of GST was not expressly decided as the normalized cost was stated to be excluding GST.

Facts

The petitioner, a software development company, developed 11 android applications for the respondent-department in 2016. The petitioner sought payment for this work through representations dated March 19, 2018. Respondent No. 1, by Memo dated September 7, 2018, disallowed payment, citing extreme delay in proposal submission for government approval and lack of adequate justification. The petitioner challenged this memo via a writ petition. The respondent-department contended that no work order was issued, the petitioner failed to meet departmental requirements, and no invoice was submitted. The court noted that the petitioner had submitted cost estimations and that a technical committee and the State e-Governance Mission Team (SeMT) had evaluated the applications, normalizing the cost to Rs. 47,03,000/- (excluding GST). The court also observed that the delay in processing the payment request appeared to originate from the respondents' side.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment for the development of 11 android software applications, considering the respondents' contentions regarding the absence of a work order, failure to meet requirements, and non-submission of an invoice (turning on the interpretation of contractual obligations and the conduct of the parties). 2. Whether the delay in seeking government approval for payment was attributable to the petitioner or the respondents, and if the petitioner should suffer due to delays on the respondents' part (turning on principles of fairness and procedural delays). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they had developed the applications as requested and had submitted cost estimations. They contended that the delay in payment processing was on the part of the respondents, as evidenced by the sequence of communications and evaluations. They relied on the normalized cost determined by the SeMT as the basis for payment. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that no formal work order was issued, the petitioner did not fulfill departmental requirements, and no invoice was submitted. They also contended that the proposal for payment was submitted with extreme delay for government approval, lacking adequate justification.