The High Court · 2025

Gounsel for the Petitioner : SRI S. M. SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TGSRTC) The Court madel the following: ORDER t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A ORDER: I sri s.M. subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Telangana state Road rransport corporation (TGSRTC) contractor. He submits that the petitioner was the highest bidder in the year 2oLT tender for provicing one skilled and two unskilled workers for HSD oil top_ up and preparation of accountar challans at Gadwal Depot. He submits that the petitioner has successfully completed the contract work and was paid bills up to December,2oLg by the respondents. He submits that the petitioner, despite having completed the contract work between Januar5r, 2oLg and July 2oL9, the respondents raitea to release payment of the pending bills and withheld the EMD amount of i?s.36,364/-l aggregating to a total of Rs.2.5o lakhs, in pursuance of the work orders dated L7.o6.2oLZ and 03.10.2019, without any justification. made several representations to the authorities, the latest being on 23.11-2023, but no action was taken. He further submits that /''!\ // L 2 this inaction of the respondents has caused tinanciar hardship and loss to the petitioner. 2' on the other hand, Ms. Mahitha, reai-ned counser representing sri R. Anurag, learned Standing counsel for TGSRTC, for the respondents have filed a detajled counter affidavit raising a preliminary objection regarding the maintaineLbility of the writ petition, contending that the dispute arises pu:'ely out of a contractuar obrigation, whicrr shourrd be adjudicated by a competent civii court and not under Article 226 of the constitution. It is statec that the petitioner railed to submit the requisite bills arong with statutory documents, namely, prfd PF and ESI chailans, as per clauses 23 and 24 of the contract agreement. It is stated that on pF challans f<lr Januar5r, 2org and February, 2org were found, but no rec'rds for March, 2or9 to Jury,. 2org were gvailable or reflected on the official website. It is further stated that the respondents are always ready to process and release the bills once the petitioner submits ail. requisite documents showing statutory compliance. 'erification, 3' This {)ourt, having heard both sides and perusing the mateqfal on. the record, is of the considered. view that the .-.. 3 dispute primarily pertains to non-payment of bills owing to non-submissionofrequisitedocumentsinaccord.ancewiththe contractualterms.Therespondentshavenotdeniedthe petitioner's execution of work but have pointed to lapses in statutorycompliance.Whileissuesarisingpurelyfrom contractualbreachesaregenerallynotmaintainableinwrit jurisdiction, in the interest of justice and having regard to the factual circumstances, this Court deems it aPProPriate to disposeofthematterwithnecessarydirectionswithoutdelving into the merits of the contractual dispute'

4.Accordingly,thisWritPetitionisdisposedofwiththe following directions: \ \ \ i.Thepetitionerisdirectedtosubmitthependingbillsfor the period from January ' 2}lg to July' 2OL9' along with all requisite documents' including proofr of statrrtory compliance (e.g', PF challans' ESI details' performance certificates, etc'), within a period of four (4) weeks from the'date of receipt of a cbpy of this order' ' Upon such submission, the respondents slatl verify the

11. ' documentsandprocessthebillsinaccordarrcewithlaw --- I 4 ancl t]re terms of the contract, and release the eligible amount, including the EMD if found refundable, within four' (4) weeks thereafter. If €my deficiencies are found in the documents, the restrrondents shall communicate the same in writing to the petitioner within a reasonable time, giving an opportunity to rectify such deficiencies. If the petitioner is aggrieved by an-v denial of payment by the respondents upon such verification, he is at liberty to avai.[ a.n appropriate remed.y before a competent civil 111 1V Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No costs SD/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER i i I i i / To,

1. The Managi Corporalion ing Director, Musheerabad, The Telangana State Road Transport , Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

2. The Re3ional Manager, Telangiana State Road Transport Corporation, Mahabub Nagar Region, Mahabub Nagar, Telangana State.

3. The Acc,runts Officer, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, 0/o the Regional Manager, Mahabub Nagar, Telangana State.

4. The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Gadwal Depot, Mlahabub Nagar.

5. One CC to SRI S. M. SUBHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TGSRTC) 7. Two CD ,3opies Pvu l.I -.*'-._-< .i..-:i.-_r 'i ' {r'i -. * -.?*!&^di.$,,.i{-4' I a HIGH COURT DATED:0611012025 ORDER WP.No.19492 ot 2025 / o(J t * THE S ' 6 '!'B ?flz[ -a , * DlT t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C STS JKS e"f/ze ,