G- Bal Narasimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 6: SRI MD.NAVED KHAl'l AGP FOR FINANCE E 'LANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: SRI L.SANDEEP, AG I FOR IRRIGATION The Court made the following: ORDER TN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRTT PETITION .7494 F 202 DATE: Lt.o3.2026 Petitione r Between : G.Bal Narasimha ReddY And The State of Tela nga na, Rep. by its PrinciPal SecretarY, Finance Dcpartment, Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others ResPondents ORDER Heard Sri Allam Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Md' Naved Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 6 and Sri L. Sandeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 5' Irrigation J.r- 2 5 N,l V, , No.7494 ol 2026 2, The oetitioner aP proached the Cou rt seek inq r er as under: " issue a Writ, order oT directi r particularly one ln the nature of wrtt of nr; declaring the action of thc Rcsponder I particularly the 1st respondent in not relel admitted approved amounts for the work i.e, Work of Beautificatron of Ooracheruvu, Bejjar I f4), Siddipet Districl as Mini fank Bund (h: referred to as Sublect Work) executed by the F as illegal, arbitrary, UnconstituIional and <:c r Conditions oF Coniract and consequently dire: RespondenI to release the admitted i outstanding due amount of Rs.24,37,475i- Twenty Four Lakh Thtrty One Thousand Four and Seventy Five Only) vide Token No.2t-:l) dated 28 lO-2025 due towards the Balanc€ Beautification of Ooracheruvu, Bejjanki ( / Siddipct District as [4ini Tank Bund execut( ( petition e r and pass. " r more ndamus ; more ;ing the Balance i (V and -einafter :titioner Lrary to the 1st p proved ( Ru pees Iundred .711578 /,,tork of & M), by the

#3. The c se of the etitioner in brief ,s per the averments made in the affidavit filed bv ttll: petitioner tn suDDort of the esent Writ Petition is a; under:- i) The petitioner, a Class-III contractor, I as awarded the work of "Balance Work of Beautification of I oracheruvu, ,..*dG@:ri r 3 S N,] W P.No.7494 of 2025 Bej.lanki, Siddipet District as Mini Tank Bund" pursuant to administrative approval vide G.O.Rt.No.792 dated

08.06.2018 and technical sanction vide SDR No.02lEElID- llIC ll2023 )-4 dated 06.12.2023, and thereafter, the petitioner had entered into an agreement wlth the 4th respondent vide Agreement AB No.L2IEEIID-t/rc-1/2023- 24 dated lO.Ol.2024 for a contract value ot Rs.27,19,865.47 with a completion period of six months. ii) The petitioner executed about 90o/o of the work and raised the 1't and part running bill, which was duly measured, certifred and approved for a gross amount of Rs.24,31,475/- on 27.70.2025, and the same was also approved by the 6tt' respondent office on 28.10 2025 vide Token No.260 17 ll519. iii) However, despite such approval and completion of substantial work, the 1'r respondent has not released the admitted outstanding amount, causing severe financial hardship to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition 4 S N,I \ / ' No ?494 of 2026

#4. PERUSE D THE RECORD: A)

08.o3 The rel eva nt Dortion of the iud or rent dated .20r9 Da ssedinM /s. S urva C nstr uctions Vs. ttar Pradesh a nd others repo.t, I in ( 2019) ludqe lt:nch of the 794 oassed bv the Two State ofU 15 scc in Civil Aooeal No.2 61O of 2(19 ( Arisinq ADex Court out of SLP (C) No.295O5 of 2014)' [; extracted hereunder: aid order "...It is clear, thcrefore, from the afor l rs to the daled 22.03.20 14 that there is no dispute Des pite amount that has to be paid to the appellant rs of the this, when the appellant knocked at thc dor \o.25126 High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civ of 2OL4, the impugned judgment dated i) t.0 5. 2014 dismissed the writ petition stating tha disputed lue a rises questions of fact arise and that the amourI lurt was out of contract We are afrai d the Hiqh in asm uch as there was no whollv incorrect dis D uted ouestion of fact. On the cor !ra, rv,-the tot hea ooellant whollv amou nt outed. Eou allv. it is well settledt at whe re the state behaves arbitra rilv, even in th rea lm of ontr ct he Hi h Cou e u nder Article 226 of the Constitution of Int a t 'ABL Inte rnational Ltd. and Another v. Exr rt Credit Guarant ee CorDorat ro n of India Ltd. a I Others' int rf ava ble cou I L t ! 'l 1 t r o4 S c 553 This being the case and the work ll ving been completed long back in 2009, we direc the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessa- payment € 5 SN,J W.P.No.1494 of 2026 within a period of four wceks l'rom today. Given the long period of delay, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum may also be awarded. The appeal slands disposed of accordingly." B) The Apex Court in the iudq ment reported in 2 2 8 SCC 24O in Madras Al mtnt m m an Limited vs. Tamil Nadu Electricitv Board and Another vide iudoment d ated 06.07.2023, at Daraqraoh Nos.39 and 40 observed nder: "39. A Bench of two learned ludges of this Court in Shnlekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of Ll.P.a observed that there exists "an obvious difference" between contracts concerninq private parties to those which have State as a party. The primary difference being that the State while exercising its powers and dischargrng its functions "acts indubitably, as is expccted of it, for publrc good and in public interest". The said Factor singularly is suffrcient to bring into any transaction the minimal requirements of public law, to The fact th t a d ispute which the State is a party. falls into the contractual realm does not relieve the State of its oblioati on to comDlv with the reouirements of Article 14.

#40. Further thc Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthl case had observed that: (SCC p.237, para 24) "24. The State cannot be attributed the split personality of Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the contractual field so as to {mpress on it all the characteristics of the State at the threshold while making a contract requiring it to fulfil the obligation of Article 14 of the Constitution and thereafter permitting it to cast off its garb of State 6 SN,] t\Jo. / 494 of ).026 I = ) ng the bitrarily :medies sonality erize all lture of ,isive of ing the icle 74 to adorn the new robe of a privatc body d subsistence of the contract enabling it to act subject only to the contractual obligalions an,l flowing from it. If /5 really the nature of its o as Stafe which is srgnificant and must chara' its actions, in whatever field, and not the function, contractual or otherwise, which is a the nature of scrutiny permitted for exant The requirement of A validity of its act beino the dutv to act fairlv. iustlv and rea: onabl there is nothino whichm tates aoait 'sf the concept of reouirinq the State alwavs t., so ac even in contractual matte rs. There is a basic difference between thc acts ol the Statc \.,/ I r th m ust invariably be in publrc interest and those oi; private individual, engaged in similar activitics, beinq )rimartly for personal gain, which may or may nol rromole public interest. Viewed in this matter, in whrc I we find no conceptual difficulty or anachronism, lqg, Find no reason whv the reouirement of Article I 4 shou ld not extend even in the sDh ere of con:ractual matters for requlatinq the conduct 9t t! e State activitv," c) The relevant portion of the iudcrnent dated 30.04.2922 passeL by the Hrqh Court of Andhra Pradesh in Katta Chinna Kotaiah vs. T1e State of Andhra Pradesh reported in MANU/APIO7 . Ll2022. is extracted hereunder: "The Apex Court and this Court if catena of decisions held that when there is non-[ avment of the undisD uted bills, the same is vio ! rtive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Con stitution :' India. The counsel for the petitioner rightly placed r: ance on !r!q!*w]- 7 S N,] W P No.l494 al 2026 the decision of the Apex Court in Surya Constructions Vs. State of Utter Pradesh and others, following the judgment in ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantce Corporatron of Indra Ltd. Crted supra. !.0 vlew of the Aoex Court iudqment, the contention of the lea rn ed Government Pleader hat the writ ion is not main fore this ot be countenanced. The bills of the cou ld petitioner dated 13.3.2019 are admitted by the respondents and forwarded l'or payment after due measurements and obtaining quality control and the Vigilance report. uencc, the authorities are estopped from stating that the brlls are submltted without executing the works. On l-he mere ground of pendency of Vigilance report, payment cannot be stopped. there shall be a direction to the Acco rd in q lv, to Dav the bill amount of respondents Rs.8.O8,828/ - to the oetitioner withi a oeriod of six weeks from the date of receiDt of coov of this order. " D) The relevant Dortion of the iudq ment dated assed bv the Hiqh Cou rt of Andhra

16.03.2021 Pradesh in Mu tvala Veeravenkata Satva naravana vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reDorted in 2O21 SCC Online AP 141 o. in oarticular oaraqrap h Nos.8 and 9, is extracted hereunder: "8. The provisions of the Act make it clear that is a welfare legislation meant to create employment/eradicate unemployment in rural areas and in the process to crcate durable assets for rural India. Thus, it is clear that a Dublic element is involved in these works with State Darticioation t, B sN,l ,.,, ) No. /194 ot2026 and f u ndl'nq. The "States" presence is th€ pervasive in this scheme. The law on the inte r of welfare leglslation is also very clear. As number of cases including K.H.Nazar v. Mather' case by the Supreme Court of India ".Judgcs be concerned with the colour, content and lf( of such statutes". Therefore, in view of the s: and keeping in mind the purpose for !/ legislation is enacted, this Court has to holo is a public element involved in this and that I pure case of the State entering into a c ) co ntract. r lfore all )retation held in ( Jacob )ught Lo context tled law rrch the at there rs not a nmercial

#9. Apart from this when State ! r State in an arbitrarv ma ,rner o instrumentalities a fail to act within time the Writ Court d c :s have iurisdiction to entertain the matter. Evcrl lne ca se law cited by the learned counsel for the 1 ctitioner supports this to an extent. Besides this Corr notices rent of that there is no method/mode for settl: Rue14 disputes provided for. Section 23 ofthe Ac[ att, ot Schedule-l for example provide fo- constant monltorrng of the works/books to be maintl ned etc. Despite this, there is no strict denial ol t re exact quantu m of work executed." E) The relevant portion of the iudqr tent dated

22.O3.2022 0ass ed bv the Hiqh Courl of Andhra in particular Pradesh in W.P.No.2511 of 2022 Da raq ra DhNo s.23 and 2

#4. is e xtracted her 'I under: *23) The Hiqh Court of Andhra h in J. Devendra Reddv v :akati a Prades Univers t anda nother re orted in ; o1s (3) ALD 9 7 held that withholdinq of thr I amount payab le to the oet itioner for the :ontract T] o SN,] w. P. No /494 0i 2026 wo rks, constitutes paten t arbitrarines 5()n tlr e arf.r f f h irected t h ond n es ond n th6 t^ oetitioner alonq with interest (o l2o/o oer annum. ount du a 241 The Hiqh Court of And h ra Pradesh in S. Srinivas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others re orted in 2021 (5) ALT 267. held that the Detitioner is entitled for L2o/o .a the da exD rv of one month from the date of ion of bill to till the date of pavme nt. " F) The relevant portion of the iudqment dated 21.o4.2025 passed bv this Court in W.P.No.11744 of 2025 in Darticular paraqraph No.5, is ex acted hereunder: "5. Havin reqard to the submissions of both the learned coun el, this Court deems it tition b ies t admitted bill amount of riate t release the e of the Wri o ndent

34.OO d as osst the etition r referabl wt hi period of six (6) weeks from the date of rece iot of a co voftheo er. No costs. " I 1 G) The relevant Dortion of the order of this Court dated O3.1O. 20 230assed under similar circumstances inW .P.No.126 55 of 2O2 Nos.12 and 13 ,tsextracted he in particular para qraph reu n der: , - - ---'aiq 1*t6,r.:l!.:aa*a-:- -- 10 SN,] \0.7a94 ot 2r-126 "12. In the light of the pleacitgs and arguments referred to above, it is r I :ar that there is no dispute with regard to irlounts payablc under Bill Nos.34, 35 and :l(. tt has been held bv the Hon'b le SuDrenl : Cou rt from time to time that writ iurisdir: ion er se cannot be denied merelv beci I rse the d isp ute arose out of a commercial ( ontract as held in Surva Constructions' cas g (Su pra 1). ABL International Limited's cas € (Suora 2) and Centurv SpinnintI Manufacturinq ComDanv Limitecl' ; case (Su pra 3). In Surva Co nstructio I t' case (Suora 1). the Hon'ble SuDrerr ( Court qranted relief to the Detitioner therein takino note of the fact that bills D.r' 'able to the petitioner were undisDuted. In the the petitioner stanc s on a instant case, better footinq as the bills of the o ( titioner are not onlv admitted but also cert f ied. As observed above, in the present case tr rre rs no he only dispute as such between the parties. rI u nder issue is with regard to release of payrre Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 by the resp; rdents State. No explanation is forthcoming rom the ,ered by respondents as to why the amounts cl Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 cannot be e lea sed . According to the respondents, Bill N: i.34,35 and 36 are pending for want of; rdgeta ry of the clearance. On the face of it, act.c r ;le and respondents is arbitrary, unreason; unjust and the same cannot be counte- : nced. I .). The contention of the learne Advocate General t! at the Add itiona I petitioners have to aoDroach ci r I Cou even for Davme t ofa dmitted tils runs contrarv to the settled leqal pl! I osition. This Court would also look into tl r public rnterest involved. The project, as inf c -med by 11 S N,J W. P. No. /49.1 ol 2026 the learned counsel on either side, is an ongoing project and the bills worth of hundreds of crores are kept pendrng for no reason and there is every possibility oF non-release of payment impacting the ongoing project and the samc would not be in public inler esl . Even lor this reason, this Court holds that the petitioner has made out a case warranttng interference in writ jurisdiction. Further' as there is inordinate delav in release of oavments bills b in the o resDon ents to the oet itioner without an of th is cour ustific the resDondents are liable to oav pena I interest. Howe ver, as aoainst the claim of this Court holds that the resp ondents are liable to oay penal interest at 9o/o DQ.t annu!n.1 r annum h b H) The relevant portion of the order dated

24.O4.20 2025, 25 oassed b in Darticular Da rao ra Dh No.4. is ex racted s Court in W.P.No.1O284 of v thi here u nd er: n "4. In view of the same and Darticularlv since it has been nearlv a vear since the token has etitioner it fit and DroDer to direct the sth resDo dent to release the ad mitted and certified work done nts, i.e., Rs.7 7 ,79,224 / - in resoect of the paY Token No .2456A68964 to the oetitione r within is Court dee da sfr m he date riod of te this order and if the receipt of a coDv of Davment is not made bv the said date, th e said i nterest nt shall ca rate of 10 12 5l'l , l ,4/ I []o.7.194 oi 2026 oer annum fro m the date of issu anc! of the Token till the date of Davme nt." DISC USSION AND CONC LUSION:

#5. Learned counsel appearing on beh rlf of the petitioner submits that, the subject iss ue in the present writ petition is squarely covered tl r the order of this Court dated Oa.O7.2025 passed in VU P'No'29O6 of 2025, order dated 22-OL,2O26 lassed in W.P.No.39884 of 2(J25, order dated iO'04'2025 passed in W.P.No.1O887 of 2025 and als< the order dated 24.02.2O26 passed in W.P.No.3834 tl 2026' Learned Assistant Government Pleaders i ppearing on 6. behalf of the respondents do not disput: the said submission made by the learned counsel I )pearing on beha lf of the petitioner. 7, TAKIN G INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstar ces of the case, b) The submissions made by the learl ed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned 13 sN,l W.P.No 7494 of 2025 Assistant Government pleaders appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The observations in the judgments referred to and extracted above and enlisted below: (i) (2o1e) 16 SCC 794, (ii) (2023) 8 SCC 24O, (iii) MANU/AP / 07 27 / 2022, (iv) 2021 SCC Ontine Ap 1410, (v) The judgment dated 22.O3.2O22 passed by the High Court of Andhra pradesh in W.P.No.251t ol 2022, (vi) The judgment dated 21.04.2O25 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11t44 of 2O25, (vii) The order dated 03.1O.2O23 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12655 of 2OZ3t (viii) The order dated 24.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1O2B4 ot 2025, d) The order of this Court dated 28.O4.2O25 passed in W.P.Nos.1179L of 2025, e) The order of this Court dated 25.O4.2O25 passed in 11541 ot 2025 14 SN,] v! I No.7494 of 2026 f) The order of this Court dated 22.04.2O2I passed in 11640 of 2O25 S) The discussion and conclusion as rrrived at paragraph Nos.s and 1O of this order, h) The discussion and conclusion as lrrived at paragraph Nos.4 to 6 of the present order, The writ petition is disposed of directinq Respondent No.1 to consider the requl st of the petationer for release of the admatted an( aDproved outstandinq due amount of Rs.24,3L,475 1 ( Ru pees Twentv Four LakLlrirty One Thousan d Fcr r Hundred and Seventl, Erve Only) vide Token No.2.t ,O1711578 Beautification of Ooracheruvu, Beiianki dated 28.1O.2025, due towards the Balarr e Work of _(v & ML Siddipet District as Mini Tank Bund execrr:ed bv the I petitioner herein, dulv takinq into considr ration the observations of the Apex Court and this O lurt in the va rlous I ud ments ( referred to a nd extract ed above), o and oass aoorooria orders oertaininq t() release of the said admitted undisputed work done r), rvments in respect of the works executed by the petit l 'ne!: as per i I ' t 15 SN,] W.P.No.)494 of 2026 D t itio ner's leqal enti tlem ent, in accord ance to law riod of thr e( 3)weeks fromthe date of within a cet tofac of his r nd ul commu nic lon on the sai the ect iti ner to the oetitione r her et n. Theresh all be noo rderas to costs. re ue tofth Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

#2. The Principal Secretary, lrrigation and Command Area Development Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

#3. The Superintending 1 Engineer, lrrigation Circle No.1, LIVD Colony, Karimnagar, Telangana.

#4. The Executive Engineer, lrrigation Divn No.1, lrrigation Circle-1, LI\ilD Colony, Karimnagar, Telangana

#5. The Deputy Executive Engineer, lrrigation SD-2 of lrrigation Divn-1, lrrigation Circle,1, LMD Colony, Karimnagar, Telangana

#6. The District Treasury Officer, lntegrated District Office Complex, Siddipet District.

#7. One CC to SRI ALLATM RAMESH, Advocate IOPUCI 8. Two CCs to GP FORIFINANCE & PLANNING, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

#9. Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

#10. Two CD Copies w BSR TKS HIGH COURT DATED: 1110312026 CC TODAY () '7t\rll ;fl:7 I j or1 s s\ \\ .) O U- 'd- ORDER .{ WP .No.7494 o12026 tt9IH + DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \q -tffa #--"