Annam Dasharath Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the final bill amount against the Token No. 2522922195 dated 15.10.2024 for an amount of Rs. 33,29,404t- and Token No260i631016, dated 17 10.2025 for an amount of Rs. 3,64,164/- total amounting of Rs. 36,93,568 to the petitioner forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. R. SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 6: Gp FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.3,4 and S: Gp FOR ROAD AND BU|LDINGS The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.15128 of 2O26 DATE: 15O6.2O26 Between: Annam Dasharath Reddy The State of Telangana and others And ...Petitioner ,..Respondents ORDER Heard Sri K.R. Srikanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for General Administration appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. ,) SN,J W.P.No.15128 of 2026 2, The Detitioner a DDroach ed the Court seekinq Draver as under: ". to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the final bill amount against the Token No. 252292218 5 dated 15.10.2024 for an amount of Rs. 33,29,404/- and Token No.2601631016, dated 17.10.2025 for an amount of Rs. 3,64,7641- towa'ds the work-completed by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay the final bill amount Rs.36,93,568/- sanctioned by the respondents to the petitioner with interest from the date of completion of work till the date of payment, and pass such other or further order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case."

#3. The case of the Detitioner in brief as Der the averments made in the affidavit filed bv the petitioner in suDDort of the Dresent Writ Petition is as under:-

3.1 The petitioner, being an experienced civil contractor, successfully participated in the tender process conducted by the 1tt respondent and was awarded the said works. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner duly executed and completed the entrusted works as per specifications. 3 sN,J W.P.No.15128 of 2026

3.2 Upon inspection, the respondents certified satisfactory completion of the works by the petitioner herein. The total value of the works executed by the petitioner was Rs.44,00,000/- and Rs.19,00,000/- respectively. Out of the said amount, the respondents paid only Rs.10,70,596/- and Rs.15,35,836/- respectively, leaving a balance amount of Rs.36,93,568/- payable to the petitioner.

3.3 The competent authorities sanctioned the final bills and issued Token No.2522922185 dated 15.10.2024 for Rs.33,29,404/- and Token No.2601631016 dated L7 .10.2025 for Rs.3,64,764/ -.

3.4 Despite completion of the works, certification of completion, sanction of final bills, issuance of token numbers and repeated representations dated 03.02.2025,

09.02.2026 and 20.03.2026, the admitted and undisputed bill amount of Rs.36,93,568/- remains unpaid without any justification. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

#4. PERUSED THE RECORD:- 4 SN.J W.P.No.15128 of 2026 (A) The relevant Dortio n of the iudoment dated O8.O3.2O19 oassed in M/s. Surva Constructions Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and othe reoorted in 16 SCC 794 h Tw x Court in Civil A of h out of SLP (C) No.295O5 of 2O14). is extracted hereunder: "...It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2074 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No.25126 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of contract. We are afraid the Hioh Court was whollv incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact, On the contrary, the amount pavable to the appellant is it is r rell whollv undisputed, Eouallv, settled that where the Sta behaves arbitrarily. even in the realm of contract, fhc lliah Cnr rrt enrr .l 1nfFrfara r rlr.lar A?ti.la r t^nl ))R +ha a^6cli+t International Ltd. and Another v. Exoort Credit Guarantee Corooration of India Ltd. and Others' (2OO4 (3) SCC 553)1. .rrr ri+ Trr/i' ^1 r This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2OO9, we direct the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the 5 SN,J W.P.No.1512a of 2026 necessary payment within a period of four weeks from today. Given the long period of delay, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum may also be awarded. The appeal stands disposed of accord ing ly. " (B) The Dex Court n the iudo ent reDo ed in 4 r n Limit vs. Tamil N du Electricitv Board and nother vide i udoment dated 06.07 .2023. at raoraDh N os.39 and 40 observed as under: "39. A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of U.P.a observed that there exists "an obvious difference" between contracts concerning private parties to those which have State as a party. The primary difference being that the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions "acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public Aood and in public interest". The said factor singularly is sufficient to bring into any transaction the minimal requirements of public law, to which the State is a party. The fact that a dispute Falls into the contractual realm does not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the requirements of Article 14.

#40. Further the Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi case4 had observed that: (SCC p.237, para 24) 6 SN,J W.P.No.1512a of 2026 "24. The State cannot be attributed the split personality of Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the contractual field so as to impress on it all the characteristics of the State at the threshold while making a contract requtring it to fulfil the obligation of Article 14 of the Constitution and thereafter permitting it to cast off its garb of State to adorn the new robe of a private body during the subsistence of the contract enabling it to act arbitrarily subject only to the contractual obligations and remedies flowing from it, It is really the nature of its personality as Sfate which is significant and must characterize all its actions, in whatever field, and not the nature of function, contractual or otherwise, which is decisive of the nature of scrutiny permitted for examining the validity of its act. The requirement of Article 14 being the duty to act fairly, justly and reasonably, there is nothing which militates against the concept of requiring the State always to so act, even in contractual matters. There is a basic difference between the acts of the State which must invariably be in public interest and those of a private individual, engaged in similar activities, being primarily for personal gain, which may or may not promote public interest. Viewed in this matter, in which we find no conceptual difficulty or anachronism, we find no reason why the requirement of Ar-ticle 14 should not extend even in the sphere of contractual matters for regulating the conduct of the State activity." (c) The r leva nt oortio n of the iu dqment .o4.2022 s h n Pradesh in Ka a Kotaiah v he State of 1 SN,J W.P.No.15128 of 2026 Andhra Pradesh reoorted in MANU/APlO721l2022, is extracted hereunder: ^f }}ra rrndicnrrfod h c "The Aoex Court and this Court in catena of decisions held that when there is rt.rri-irtv'rrarr) same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on 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 Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Cited supra. In view of the Apex Court judgment, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court could not be countenanced. The bills of the petitioner dated 13.3.2019 are admitted by the respondents and forwarded for payment after due measurements and obtaining quality control and the Vigilance report. Hence, the authorities are estopped from stating that the bills are submitted without executing the works. On the mere ground of pendency of Vigilance report, payment cannot be stopped. Accordinglv, there shall be a direction to the respondents to pav the bill amount of Rs.8,O8.828/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receiDt of coDy of this order," (D) The relevant portion of the iudqment dated 15.O3.2O21 passed bv the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mutvala Veera enkata Satvanaravana vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reoorted in 2021 8 SN,J w.P.No.15128 of 2026 SCCOnline AP 14L0, in particular DaraqraDh Nos.8 and 9, is extracte d hereunder: "8. The provisions of the Act make it clear that it is a welfare legislation meant to create em ployment/eradicate unemployment in TuTal areas and in the process to create durable assets for rural India. Thus, it is clear that a public element is involved in these works with State participation and funding. The "States" presence is therefore all pervasive in this scheme. The law on the interpretation of welfare legislation is also very clear. As held in number of cases including K.H,Nazar v. Mathew K Jacob case by the Supreme Court of India "Judges ought to be concerned with the colour, content and the context of such statutes". Therefore, in view of the settled law and keeping in mind the purpose for which the legislation is enacted, this Court has to hold that there is a public element involved in this and that lt ls not a pure case of the State enterlng into a commercial contract. m n I h +r

#9. Apart from this when State or n ti+ c aat Ct-+6 manner or fail to act within time the Writ Court does have iurisdiction to entertain the matter. Even the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner supports this to an extent. Besides this Court notices that there is no method/mode for settlement of disputes provided for. Section 23 of the Act and Rule 14 of Schedule-I for example provide for constant monitoring of the works/books to be maintained etc. Despite this, there is no strict denial of the exact quantum of work executed," 9 SN,J W.P.No.1512A of 2026 (E) The relevant portion of the iudqment date 22.O3.20 2 Dassed bv the Hioh Court of A dhra Pradesh in W.P.No. 511 of 2022. in oarti paraoraph Nos.23 and 24, is extracted hereunder: cu lar 3 The Hioh Cou 'l ofA dh ra Pra esh in J Deven ra ReddvvKa tiva Univ rsitv and another oorted in 2015 (3) ALp 97, hetd that withholding of the amount payable to the petitioner for the contract works. constitutes oatent arbitrariness on the oart of respondents and directed the respondents to pav 2015 the amount due to the oetitioner along wath interest @ 12olo per annum. 24) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S, Srinivas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2021 (5) ALT 267 , held that the oetitioner is entitled /61 'l 2Ola na of expirv of one month from the date of submission of bill to till the date of Davment." ln +araci fF^an + (F) The releva nt rtion of the iud ment 2L. h W.P.No.11744 of 2O25 in oarticular paraoraoh No.5, is extra cted hereu nder: "5. Havin both the le reoard to the sub issions of urt deems arned counsel, this C 10 SN,J w.P.No.15128 of 2026 it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition bv directino the respondent a uthorities to relea e the admitted bill -rrrar.rr+ af Pc t 16 E 1 aa,A nn L{rra f.r tho oetitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs." (G) The relevant portion of the order of this Court dated 03.10.2023 Dassed under similar circumstances in W.P.No.12655 ot 2()23 in particular paraqraph Nos.12 and 13, is extracted hereunder: rrraralrr haarrrea "12. In the light of the pleadings and arguments referred to above, it is clear that there ls no dispute with regard to amounts payable under Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time that writ jurisdiction per ca aaitiiail' ha dcniad fl'ta disoute arose out of a commercia! contract as held in Surva Constructions' case (Supra 1), ABL International Limited's case (Supra 2'l and Century Spinning and Manufacturing Comoany Limited's case (Supra 3). In Surya Constructions' case (Supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court oranted relief to the Det tioner there n taking note of the fact that bills payable to In t h t hc nct I oncr instant case, the oetitioner stands on a befter footino as the bills of the petitioner are not onlv admitted but also certified. As observed above, in the present case there is no dispute as such between the parties. The only c rrnd €nr rfFal- r SN,J W.P.No.15128 of 2026 issue is with regard to release of payment under Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 by the respondents - State. No explanation is forthcoming from the respondents as to why the amounts covered by Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 cannot be released. Accordlng to the respondents, Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 are pending for want of budgetary clearance. On the face of it, action of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and the same cannot be countenanced.

#13. The contention of the learned Additionat Ad!{acate General that the petitioners have to approach civil Court even for pavment of admitted bills runs nt r the sett azl nr^nncili^n This Court would also look into the public interest involved. The project, as informed by the learned counsel on either side, is an ongoing project and the bills worth of hundreds of crores are kept pending for no reason and there is every possibility of non-release of payment impacting the ongoing project and the same would not be in public interest. Even for this reason, this Court holds that the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference in writ jurlsdrction. Further, as there is inordinate delay in release of payments covered by the subject bills by the respondents to the petitioner without any justification, in the opinion of this Court, the respondents are liable to pay penal interest. However, as against the claim of l8o/o per annum sought by the petitioner, this Court holds that the respondents are liable to pay penal interest dt 9olo per annum." H Th d m n f he Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and sN'l W.P.No.1512a of 2026 Others reDorted in AIR 20 O Suoreme Court 969 and in particular oara Nos.lOO and 101 held as f llows: The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction " 100. Article 226 of the Constitution of india, not only he power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the have t of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to n atu re exer cise such ower, where the G vernment ora led to exercise or has Dublic authoritv has f d iscretion conferred u oon it wron lv exercise bvastatute, or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or o irreleva n consider tion.

#101. In all such cases, the High Court. must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lavrful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority." DISC USSION AND CONCLU SION:- 5 The I arned coun el aooearin o on behalf of the n r sub b ect i Dresent writ Detition is sou a relv covered bv the order of this Court dated O2.03. 2025 Dassed in W.P. No. 3345 of 2026 and hence, the Detationer is entitled for the ora nt of relief as extended to the oetiti ner in No. 3 f20 o2.0

#5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning appearing on behalf of the l3 SN,J W.P.No.15128 of 2026 respondent Nos.2 and 6 does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in so far as the application of the principle laid down in the said judgments (referred to and extracted above) to the facts of the present case on the point that when there is non- payment of the undisputed bills, the same is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and the state is bound to act fairly.

#7. A bare perusal of the record indicates that petitioner received part payments and the competent authorities sanctioned the final bills and issued Token number 2522922LA5 dated L5.LO.2O24 for Rs.33,29,4O41- and token number 26O1631016 dated L7.LO.2O25 for Rs.3,64,L641-, but however the said due amounts which had been admitted and undisputed remained unpaid as on date without any justification indicating failure on the part of the Respondent Authority in discharging its function and obligation towards the petitioner, hence this Court

1.1 SN,J W.P.No.15128 of 2026 opines that subject issue needs consideration by the respondents herein.

#8. TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & planning appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and 6, c) The observations in the judgments referred to and extracted above and again enlisted below: (i) (2019) 169CC794, (ii) (2023) 8 SCC 24O, (iii) MANU/AP / O72r / 2022, (iv) 2021 SCCOnline AP 1410, (v) The judgment dated 22.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.251L ol 2022, (vi) The judgment dated 21.04.2O25 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11744 ol 2025, (vii) The order dated 03.1O.2023 passed by this court in w.P.No.12655 0l 2023, (viii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (d) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at paragraph Nos.S & 6 of this order, l5 SN,J W.P.No.15r.28 of 2026 The present writ oetition is also disoosed of in terms of the order of this Court. dated 02.03.2026 oassed in w.P.No.3346 of 2026. directinq the resoondents herein to consider the r quest of the oetitioner for release of the admitted, undisouted bill amount of R .36,93,568/- (Ruoees Thi y Six Lakhs Ninetv Three Thousand Five Hundred a d Sixtv Eioht to th work n suoolv, fabri tion, installation of eouio ent reouired u ofn w R n buildinos and erection of MS oates at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telansana Secretariat, Hvderabad, as oer No.2 22 22

15.10.2 24 amount of Rs.33.29,404l- and Token No.2601631016 dated 17.10.2O25 for an amount ol Rs.3,64.1641-. alono with interest, within a oeriod of eiqht (08) weeks from the date of r eiDt of a coDv of this order dulv takino into consideration the observations of the Aoex Court a d other Courts in the vario us iudqments referred to a d extracted above and oa orders oertai inq to release of the said approDriate jue amounts l6 SN,J W.P.No.1512a of 202O h INr entitle ment. No rder as t o cos ts, M iscella neous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// sD/-P. PONNA KRTSHNA ,,/ ASSIST NT REGISTRAR 1-.F , -- 'l \ SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Prl. Secretary. General Administration (SB)Department, Secretariat Buildings, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad

#2. The Prl. Secretary, The State of Telangana, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

#3. The Superintending Engineer, Roads and Buildings electrical circle Hyderabad

#4. The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings EBD East Building Division, Hyderabad 5 The Chief Engineer, (RandB) Road and Buildings, lrrumanzil Hyderabad. 6. The Pay and Accounts Office, O/o Directorate of works and projects, Nampally, M J Road, Hyderabad -01.

#7. One CC to Sn K R. Srikanth, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for General Administration, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 9 Two CCs to the GP for Finance and Planning, High Court for the State of Telangana. at Hyderabad[OUT] '10. Two CCs to the GP for Road and Buildings, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT] 1 1. Two CD Copies .TJ BS <w HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 1510612026 ORDER WP.No.15128 ot 202G eY\1 rFTA ( o 25JUN2U20 fi ,q t D FS ,P]C , o DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ($) ,L,