Chedala Gangireddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to file a counter-affidavit or provide written instructions despite multiple adjournments. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent authorities to verify and pay the admitted amount for the works executed by the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court also stipulated that the petitioner must execute an indemnity bond, undertaking to repay the amount if it is later found that the work was not executed. This decision addresses the core issue of non-payment by mandating payment while safeguarding the State's interest through the indemnity bond.

Facts

The petitioner, Chedala Gangireddy, a civil contractor, filed a writ petition against the State of Andhra Pradesh and various irrigation department authorities. The petition concerned the non-release of admitted bills for completed works, specifically flood damage repairs to a canal across Maderu Vagu at different kilometer points. The total admitted bill amount was Rs. 1,47,294/- plus GST. The petitioner alleged that despite completing the works and their measurement by the authorities, payment was withheld, which he considered illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of natural justice. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release these admitted bill amounts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the admitted bills for completed works, amounting to Rs. 1,47,294/- plus GST, is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, warranting a direction for their release under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the works were completed to the satisfaction of the authorities, measurements were recorded, and the amounts were admitted, yet payment was withheld without justification. The petitioner contended that this non-payment was illegal, arbitrary, and violated natural justice principles. The respondents, represented by Assistant Government Pleaders, did not file a counter-affidavit or provide written instructions despite several adjournments, indicating a lack of substantive defense against the petitioner's claims.