M/S. Bscpl Infrastructure LTD vs. State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, S/s BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents (State of Telangana and its officials) in releasing agreed and undisputed amounts as illegal and arbitrary. The amounts in dispute are reimbursement of GST of Rs. 73,61,834/- and agreed tender premium of Rs. 78,60,769/-, totaling Rs. 1,52,22,603/-. These amounts pertain to a project for widening and strengthening of Hyderabad-Nagarjuna Sagar Road, awarded under Agreement No. 35/2016-2017 dated April 27, 2016. The project was completed in January 2019, and the petitioner had made several representations for payment, which remained unaddressed. The respondents contended that the petitioner was not entitled to file the writ petition as payments as per work done and agreement conditions had been fulfilled, and they had been released from the work.

Held

The Court found that the para-wise comments provided by the respondents did not offer any specific details regarding payments made to the petitioner or explain why the petitioner was ineligible for the claimed amounts. Consequently, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the third respondent (Superintending Engineer, R&B, Nalgonda Circle) to consider the petitioner's representations and dispose of them within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order, by way of a speaking order. Furthermore, the Court ordered that any undisputed amounts found payable to the petitioner should be paid within 30 days thereafter. The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, but the core of the dispute regarding the eligibility for the claimed amounts was to be addressed by the respondent through a speaking order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' inaction in releasing the agreed and undisputed amounts of GST reimbursement and tender premium to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the amounts claimed, specifically the reimbursement of GST and the agreed tender premium, are undisputed and legally due to them as per the contract. The respondents' failure to release these amounts, despite the petitioner's representations and the completion of the project, constitutes illegal and arbitrary action or inaction, warranting judicial intervention through a writ of mandamus. Respondents' Argument: The respondents contended that the petitioner is not entitled to file this writ petition. They claimed that payments as per the work done and agreement conditions have been fulfilled, and the respondents have issued a full release and discharge from the work. They also stated that the Defect Liability Period (DLP) has been completed.