J Radha Krishna vs. The State Of Ap

Facts

The petitioner, J Radha Krishna, a contractor, filed a writ petition seeking release of payments for works executed under a scheme in Krishna District. The final bill for the works amounted to Rs. 28,85,528/-, with a balance of Rs. 13,87,565/- remaining unpaid. The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting entitlement to Rs. 14,98,063/-, no payment was being made, which was considered arbitrary. The respondents, through the District Head of Housing, admitted a balance amount of Rs. 13,87,465/- payable to the petitioner and submitted proposals for budget release, requesting three months to upload the bill on the Nidhi Portal.

Held

The Court held that the non-payment of admitted dues by the respondents was arbitrary and required intervention. Citing its own previous orders, including a learned Single Judge's judgment in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch, the Court found that such non-payment was unsustainable. The respondents, through their counsel, admitted the balance amount of Rs. 13,87,465/- payable to the petitioner and indicated steps taken for budget release, requesting time for portal upload. Considering the admitted liability and the established principle that admitted dues should be cleared promptly, the Court directed the respondents to pay the admitted balance amount of Rs. 13,87,465/- to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The Court did not explicitly discuss any specific GST provisions or sections, focusing on the contractual payment obligation. The issue of GST on the payment was mentioned in the prayer but not addressed in the operative part of the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not releasing the admitted balance payment of Rs. 13,87,565/- to the petitioner for the executed works is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the non-payment of the admitted dues was arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating judicial intervention. The petitioner relied on previous orders of the High Court, including a learned Single Judge's judgment in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch, which held similar non-payments as arbitrary and requiring prompt clearance. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel for the Housing Corporation, placed on record written instructions admitting the balance amount payable to the petitioner. They also indicated that proposals for budget release had been submitted to the Government and sought three months' time to upload the bill in the Nidhi Portal. The respondents did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claim for the admitted amount.