M/S M G Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the Writ Petition is maintainable for the adjudication of a money claim, particularly when it pertains to the non-payment of admitted dues. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors., which stated that non-payment of admitted dues can be considered an arbitrary action and a writ petition may lie for claiming them, especially when parties have exchanged affidavits and alternative remedies would be ineffective after a long period. Regarding the second issue, the Court, having regard to the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation Department and the fact that there was no dispute with regard to the work executed and the amount payable, directed the respondent authorities to pay a sum of Rs. 14,98,031/- to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court did not explicitly address the alleged violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21, but the direction to pay the admitted amount implicitly resolved the core grievance.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s M G Engineering, a registered contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' inaction in paying admitted bills for the reconstruction of a sluice on Ambacheruvu Tank. The work was awarded under Agreement No. 107/2017-2018 and Supplementary Agreement No. 205/2018-2019, with an initial amount of Rs. 33,64,368/- plus GST and other charges. The petitioner claimed to have completed the work satisfactorily, with measurements recorded. However, the respondents, specifically Respondent No. 4, stated in their counter-affidavit that upon physical verification, only minor remnants of structural components were found, and based on departmental records and Measurement Books, the executed work was valued at Rs. 14,98,031/-. The petitioner sought payment of Rs. 56,15,867/-, including GST and other charges.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable for the adjudication of a money claim, specifically concerning the non-payment of admitted dues for executed work, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the action of the respondents in not paying the admitted bills for the executed work, as claimed by the petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to pay the admitted bills for the completed work was illegal and arbitrary. They relied on the principle that non-payment of admitted dues can be considered an arbitrary action, making a writ petition maintainable for claiming such amounts, especially after the exchange of affidavits and a significant delay in resolution. The petitioner sought a direction to release the admitted amount of Rs. 56,15,867/-, including GST and other charges. Contentions of the Respondents: The respondents, through their counter-affidavit, disputed the extent of work executed. They contended that physical verification revealed minimal work done, and based on departmental records, the admissible payment was only Rs. 14,98,031/-.