Vishwanathapalli Ram Prasad vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable because the amount payable to the petitioner was admitted and undisputed, as evidenced by the written instructions from the Executive Engineer. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors, which stated that a writ petition may lie for non-payment of admitted dues, as such inaction could be considered arbitrary. The Court found no dispute regarding the execution of works or the petitioner's entitlement to the amount of Rs. 27,30,623/-. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to release the admitted amount of Rs. 27,30,623/- to the petitioner within three months from the receipt of the order, subject to any deductions. The Court did not explicitly mention the 18% GST claimed by the petitioner in its operative directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Vishwanathapalli Ram Prasad, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the inaction of the respondent authorities in releasing the final bill amount of Rs. 27,30,623/- for works executed under Agreement No. 75/21-22 dated 08.07.2021. The petitioner contended that the work was completed as per the agreement and verified by the authorities, but payment was withheld. The respondents, represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted written instructions from the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Bhimavaram, stating that the amount payable is Rs. 27,30,623/- and the bills were not uploaded due to a lack of budget. The petitioner endorsed these instructions. The court noted that there was no dispute regarding the execution of works or the petitioner's entitlement to the amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondent authorities in releasing the final bill amount of Rs. 27,30,623/- to the petitioner, despite the completion and verification of works under Agreement No. 75/21-22 dated 08.07.2021, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the work was completed as per the agreement and verified by the respective authorities, yet the payment was not released, causing significant loss. The petitioner sought a direction to release the final bill amount along with 18% GST. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, through the Executive Engineer's written instructions, admitted that the amount payable to the petitioner is Rs. 27,30,623/- and that the bills were not uploaded due to a lack of budget. They did not dispute the execution of the work or the petitioner's entitlement to the amount.