S.Karthikeyan vs. The Municipal Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, a registered society, supplied materials including Abate-temephos, bleaching powder, lime powder, phenoyl, and face masks to the respondent, the Municipal Commissioner, Theni. The supplies were made vide invoices between 2018 and 2020, totaling Rs. 6,22,153/-. The petitioner raised GST invoices for these supplies. Despite the supplies being received and invoices raised, the respondent failed to settle the outstanding payment. The petitioner made several requests and subsequently sent a representation on 01.04.2025, followed by a legal notice on 03.05.2025, but received no response from the respondent. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent to pay the pending amount along with 18% interest.

Held

The Court held that the respondent, a public authority, had failed to fulfill its obligations by not settling the outstanding dues to the petitioner for the materials supplied. The Court noted that the respondent had purchased the materials, and the petitioner had raised GST invoices, but payment was not made. Furthermore, the respondent had not responded to the petitioner's representation dated 01.04.2025 and legal notice dated 03.05.2025. This inaction was considered a clear failure on the part of the respondent to discharge its expected duties. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition. The respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.04.2025 and pass appropriate orders within one month of receiving a copy of the order. If the respondent, upon reviewing its accounts, determined that amounts were payable, these would need to be disbursed within two weeks thereafter. The issue of interest was not explicitly addressed in the operative directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent has failed to fulfill its obligation as a public authority by not settling the outstanding dues to the petitioner for the supplied materials, thereby warranting a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent had purchased materials from the society, raised GST invoices, and failed to make the payment of Rs. 6,22,153/-. Despite representations and legal notices, the respondent remained unresponsive. The petitioner argued that this failure to clear dues and respond to communications constitutes a dereliction of duty by a public authority, justifying the intervention of the High Court through a writ of mandamus. The petitioner also sought interest at 18% per annum for the delayed payment. Respondent's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent.