Nallam Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that in view of the admission on the part of the respondents regarding the amounts payable to the petitioner, it was appropriate to direct the respondents to pay the admitted amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court reasoned that the admission by the respondents obviated the need for a detailed adjudication on the full claim. The ratio decidendi is that where a respondent admits liability for a certain amount, the Court can direct payment of that admitted amount within a specified timeframe. If the respondents fail to pay within the stipulated time, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at 12% per annum. The Court did not make any specific findings on the disputed interest rate of 18% or the exclusion of EMD and GST, as the order focused on the admitted amount. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, a contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct respondents 4, 5, 6, and 7 to release a final payment of Rs. 47,65,685/- along with 18% interest, excluding EMD and GST. The petitioner contended that work was awarded after due procedure, an agreement was executed, and the entire work was completed as per the terms. However, no payment was released by the respondents. The respondents, through the learned Government Pleader for Food and Agriculture, submitted written instructions certified by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur, dated 15.07.2022. These instructions admitted certain amounts payable to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of respondents 4, 5, 6, and 7 in not releasing the final amount of Rs. 47,65,685/- with 18% interest, excluding EMD and GST, despite the work being completed, is illegal and arbitrary? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the work was awarded following due procedure, an agreement was entered into, and the work was completed as per the agreement terms. Despite completion, no amount was released, making the respondents' inaction illegal and arbitrary. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, through written instructions, admitted the amounts payable to the petitioner. No specific legal arguments or reliance on provisions were recorded for the revenue/state.