T Venkata Ramalingeswara Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Facts

The petitioner, T. Venkata Ramalingeswara Rao, a contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents (State of Andhra Pradesh and its irrigation and finance departments) to release the final bill amount of Rs. 14,68,028/- plus 18% GST for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) works completed under various agreements. The petitioner claimed to have executed four specific works, with agreement numbers and dates provided, and that these works were measured and recorded by the authorities. Despite completion, the payment was allegedly withheld, causing financial loss. The respondent authorities, through a counter-affidavit, admitted that the bills were processed and there was no dispute regarding the execution or admissibility of the bills. They stated readiness to release the admitted amount upon receiving budget allocation and Letter of Credit (LOC) from the Government.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable for the adjudication of a money claim when the amount payable is admitted and undisputed. Citing the Supreme Court case of M/s. Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors., the Court noted that non-payment of admitted dues can be considered an arbitrary action, and a writ petition may lie for claiming such dues, especially when alternative remedies are not pursued for a prolonged period and affidavits have been exchanged. The Court found no dispute regarding the execution of works or the amount payable to the petitioner, as confirmed by the counter-affidavit and submissions. Consequently, the respondent authorities were directed to release the admitted amount of Rs. 16,69,129/- (which appears to be the sum of the petitioner's claimed amount plus GST, as the petitioner sought Rs. 14,68,028/- + 18% GST) to the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition for the adjudication of a money claim, specifically the release of admitted contractual dues, when the work has been completed and measurements recorded by the authorities? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India, principles of writ jurisdiction). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the inaction of the respondents in releasing the final bill amount, despite the completion of works as per agreement and measurement, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. They argued that a writ of mandamus is appropriate to direct the release of admitted dues. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through their counter-affidavit, did not dispute the execution of works or the admissibility of the bills. They indicated willingness to release the admitted amount upon budget allocation and Letter of Credit. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation made submissions supporting the release of admitted dues.