Kangara Ramayya Dora vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the respondent authorities had failed to provide any written instructions or file counter-affidavits despite being granted several adjournments. Given this lack of response and the petitioner's claim of completed works and admitted bills, 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 receiving a copy of the order. The Court also stipulated that the petitioner would need to execute an indemnity bond, ensuring repayment if it was later found that the works were not executed. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction, and no order was made as to costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Kangara Ramayya Dora, a civil contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the respondents' action of not releasing admitted bills for completed works as illegal and arbitrary. The works involved flood damage repairs to a canal and fabrication, supply, and erection of shutter gates for an anicut, with agreements dated January 17, 2022, for amounts of Rs. 57,355/- and Rs. 8,78,297/- respectively. The total full and final bill amounted to Rs. 5,43,184/- plus GST. The petitioner alleged that despite completing the works to the satisfaction of the authorities and measurements being recorded, the payment was withheld. The respondents, including the State of Andhra Pradesh through various departments and officials, were directed to respond. Despite several adjournments, the respondents failed to file counter-affidavits or secure written instructions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in withholding the admitted bill amounts for completed civil works, including GST, is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting a writ of mandamus? (Underlying principles of contract law and administrative law). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the works were completed satisfactorily, measured by the competent authorities, and the amounts due were admitted. The continued non-release of these admitted bills, including GST, was illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of natural justice. The petitioner sought a direction to release the admitted bill amounts with interest. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents. The respondents failed to file counter-affidavits or secure written instructions despite multiple adjournments.