S.Ayyanar vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, S. Ayyanar, a contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents, officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, to disburse a total sum of Rs. 23,59,571.30. This amount includes the balance bill amount of Rs. 16,86,285.53 (comprising Rs. 14,29,055.53 plus GST of Rs. 2,57,230), the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 81,300, and a withheld amount of Rs. 5,91,985.77. The petitioner also sought interest at 6% per annum and the discharge of a bank guarantee of Rs. 2,03,286, based on his representation dated 06.11.2025. The petitioner had carried out civil works for the third respondent temple.

Held

The Court directed the first respondent, the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, to pass an order on the proposal submitted by the third respondent temple within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Following the order to be passed by the first respondent, the payment due to the petitioner was to be settled within a further period of four weeks. The Court found that the matter was pending administrative approval and directed its expeditious resolution. The specific amounts claimed by the petitioner, including GST, EMD, and withheld amounts, were not directly adjudicated upon but were subject to the decision to be made by the first respondent. The issue of discharging the bank guarantee was implicitly linked to the final settlement of payments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the disbursement of the balance bill amount, EMD, and withheld amount, along with interest and discharge of the bank guarantee, based on his representation dated 06.11.2025? (Question of law and fact, concerning contractual obligations and departmental procedures). Arguments: Petitioner: Argued for the disbursement of the total sum claimed, including interest and discharge of the bank guarantee, based on the completion of civil works for the temple. Revenue/State (Respondents): The third respondent temple stated that the proposal for settlement was pending with the first respondent. No specific arguments were recorded against the petitioner's claim for disbursement, but rather an indication of procedural pendency.