T. Venkateswarlu vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the authorities/respondents (BSNL) to consider the representations made by the petitioner seeking the release of amounts. The Court ordered that these representations should be dealt with in accordance with the law, after hearing all concerned parties, as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not make any specific findings on the legality or arbitrariness of the non-release of funds, nor did it grant any interest. The primary decision was to direct the respondent to process the petitioner's pending representations. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court focused on the procedural relief of directing consideration of representations.

Facts

The petitioner, a contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to release bills, security deposit, EMD, and GST amounts payable for works executed under two tenders dated August 11, 2017, and November 9, 2017. The petitioner had completed the works but claimed the amounts were not released. The petitioner had made representations on January 25, 2020, and March 26, 2021, which remained unconsidered. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested the court to direct the respondents to consider these representations. The Standing Counsel for BSNL did not oppose this request.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not releasing the bills, security deposit, EMD, and GST amounts payable to the petitioner for the completed works is illegal and arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the release of the aforementioned amounts along with interest? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that despite the completion of works and subsequent representations made on January 25, 2020, and March 26, 2021, the respondent (BSNL) has failed to consider their claims for release of bills, security deposit, EMD, and GST amounts. The petitioner sought a direction from the Court to the respondents to consider and act upon these representations. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Standing Counsel for BSNL did not oppose the petitioner's request for a direction to consider their representations.