Venkatesh.R vs. The District Collector

Held

The Court held that once a contract work is awarded and the contractor is permitted to complete it, the concerned respondent is duty-bound to settle the payment. The Court found that the petitioner had completed the contract work, and despite directions from the first respondent, the second respondent had failed to make the payment. The Court rejected the contention that the sanctioned amount had lapsed as a reason for non-payment, emphasizing the obligation to settle the dues. Regarding the claim for enhanced taxes and interest, the Court directed the second respondent to settle the amount to the petitioner with permissible interest from the date of completion of work till the date of settlement. The Court did not specifically address the claim for enhanced 6% CGST/SGST but implicitly allowed for permissible interest on the principal amount.

Facts

The petitioner, a road contractor, was awarded block-level panchayat road strengthening work by the first respondent (District Collector) in 2020. The petitioner completed the work within the stipulated time, despite delays caused by the pandemic. The first respondent, through proceedings dated 09.03.2022 and 27.11.2022, directed the second respondent (Block Development Officer) to issue cheques totaling Rs. 59,75,349/- for two completed road works. However, the second respondent failed to disburse the payment. The petitioner made a representation on 16.06.2023, requesting the payment along with enhanced 6% CGST/SGST and 18% interest, but received no response. The second respondent contended that the sanctioned amount had lapsed and government orders were needed for disbursement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment of Rs. 59,75,349/- for the completed road construction works, as directed by the first respondent's proceedings dated 09.03.2022 and 27.11.2022? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced taxes (6% CGST & SGST) and interest at 18% per annum on the outstanding amount of Rs. 59,75,349/- from the date of completion of work till final payment? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that having been awarded the contract and completing the work, the second respondent is duty-bound to settle the amount. The petitioner also claimed entitlement to enhanced taxes and interest as per applicable laws and norms for delayed payments. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents, through the second respondent, contended that the petitioner did not complete the work within the stipulated time, and an extension was granted. They further submitted that the sanctioned amount for the contract work had lapsed, necessitating fresh government orders for disbursement.