Avens Expositions PVT. LTD vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court noted that the representation dated 10.08.2021 was pending consideration before the respondents. In light of this, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to verify the said representation and take appropriate action or pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the disbursement of the sanctioned amount, nor did it make any findings on the specific GST implications, as the core of the dispute revolved around the non-disbursement of funds and the inaction of the authorities. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must act upon pending representations within a reasonable timeframe.

Facts

The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, was engaged to install an AC Hanger and a Food Court for the Amaravathi Global Music and Dance Festival held from November 16-18, 2018. The Chief Executive Officer of A.P. Tourism Authority sanctioned an amount of Rs. 61,62,007/- for payment to the petitioner. Despite multiple written representations, including one dated August 10, 2021, the respondents had not disbursed the sanctioned amount. The petitioner argued that this inaction was causing irreparable loss and hardship due to invested amounts. The respondents had not responded to the petitioner's grievances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have failed to act upon the petitioner's representation dated 10.08.2021, thereby causing hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioner? The petitioner contended that despite numerous written representations, including the one dated 10.08.2021, the respondent authorities have remained silent and have not disbursed the sanctioned payment for the work done. This inaction, the petitioner argued, has led to significant financial hardship and irreparable loss. The petitioner relied on the principle that authorities should address grievances raised through proper representations. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.