Gopa Satya Madhava Subbarao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the non-payment of admitted dues was arbitrary and directed the respondents to release the admitted net amount of Rs. 16,87,390/- to the petitioner within a period of three months. Regarding the claim for interest, the Court noted that there was no admission from the respondents regarding the payment of interest or its quantum. Therefore, the Court did not grant any specific amount as interest. However, it held that the petitioner is entitled to the interest component as per the terms of the agreement and in cases of delayed payments, as per the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in W.A.No.724 of 2021. The respondents were directed to pay the admitted amount within four months. If the parties agreed on the quantum of interest, it should be paid along with the admitted amount. Otherwise, the petitioner was at liberty to submit a representation for payment of interest, which the concerned authorities were to consider and pass appropriate orders within four weeks after providing an opportunity of hearing. The Court expressly left undecided the exact quantum of interest payable, deferring it for further representation and consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, a contractor, filed a writ petition seeking release of payments totaling Rs. 21,01,972/- plus GST for works executed under the "NAVARATNALU PEDALANDARAKI ILLU" scheme in West Godavari District. The petitioner contended that despite the respondents admitting entitlement to the payment, it was not being released, which was arbitrary. The respondents, through written instructions, admitted a net amount of Rs. 16,87,390/- payable to the petitioner, stating the bill was not yet uploaded for payment but would be processed soon after. The petitioner also claimed interest on the delayed payment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in withholding the admitted payment of Rs. 16,87,390/- to the petitioner for the executed works is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment, and if so, what is the quantum and how should it be determined? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the non-payment of admitted dues was arbitrary and high-handed, necessitating court intervention. They relied on previous High Court orders, including a judgment dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch, which held similar non-payments as arbitrary and requiring prompt clearance. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through written instructions, admitted a net amount of Rs. 16,87,390/- payable to the petitioner. They stated that the bill was not yet uploaded for payment but would be processed and paid soon after uploading. They did not make specific arguments regarding the interest component.