A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of tJ.p.a observed that there exists

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the .circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, in the nature of mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 3! Respondent in not paying an amount of Rs. 33,71,32,8011- (Rupees Thirty-Three Crores, Seventy-One Lakhs, Thirty-Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seven only), along with an interest calculated at the rate of 18 percent per annum as well as interest on each of the delayed payments in respect of the corresponding,bills submitted at the rate of 18% per annum, until the date of actual repayment of the amounts, in respect of the successful supply, installation and commissioning of Smart Classrooms under the Agreement dated 21.02.2023 in purstence of the '(iiUfrir:r ..,ffiW:.::. r.IiiffFESE6;i.: .-ffi;i Contract Rel'. No. TSTS/HWP1/SED/0912022 (Agreement-l) for Phase-!, and another Agreement dated 05.10.2023 in pursuance of the Contract Ref. No. TSTS/HWP1/SED/0912O2211 (-Agreement-ll), for Phase-ll and Phase-lll, as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and to direct the 3rd Respondent to pay the aforementioned amount to the Petitioner. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fik-"d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to forthwith take steps on the representation dated 09.08.2025 addressed by the Petitioner to the 3rd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.V.PRATAP KUMAR Counselfor the Respondent No.l : AGP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : AGP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : - The Court made the following ORDER :.:iri$,' HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER: Heard Sri M.V, Pratap Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: "...to issue a writ, in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 3'd Respondent in not paying an amount of Rs.33,71,32,8O7 / - (Rupees Thirty-Three Crores, Seventy-One Lakhs, Thirty-Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seven only), along with an interest calculated at the rate of 18 percent per annum as well as interest on each of the delayed payments in respect of the corresponding bills submitted at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, until the date of actual repayment of the amounts, in respect of the successful supply, installation and commissioning of Smart Classrooms under the Agreement dated 2L.02.2O23 in pursuance of the Contract Ref. No. TSTS/HWPLISED/09|ZOZZ (Agreement-I) for Phase-I, and another Agreement dated 05.10.2023 in pursuance of the Contract Ref. No. TSTS/HWPL/SED/09/2O22/L (-Agreement- trI), for Phase-II and Phase-III, as being illegal, arbitrary, 'I 2 SN, J wp_27469_2025 unl'easonable, unfair and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles L4, 19 and 2L of the Corrstitution of India, and to direct the 3'd Respondent to pay the aforementioned amount to the Petitioner, and pass.."'

3. under: The Telangana State Technology Services Ltd., (TSTSL) had issued a tender vide Tender Ref.No. TSTS/ HWPI/ SED/ 09912022, dated 20.t0.2022 for supply, installation, commissioning and functioning of smart classroom Components an.d othr:r IT Infrastructure. Respondent No.3 has issued the Notificaticn of Award to the petitioner for Phase-I for an amount of Rs. L,72,50,OO,2281- (Rupees One Hundred and Seventy Two Crores Fifty lakhs and Two Hundred and Twenty Eight only) vide Lr.No. ]-STS/HWPI/SED/O9/2022/L, dated 11.01 .2023 and respondent No.3 also entered into an Agreement with the petitioner dated 2L.02.2023 for-providing interactive flat panel, ops, metal frame, Ups, and other electrical and LAN needs. Respondent No.3 is liable to make payment of 100o/o of the contract value on successful installation of equipment. '--- J SN, J w_27469 2025 Petitioners addressed letters to the respondents vide letters dated 20.02.2024, 2s.07.2024, 28.LL.2024, 19.06.2025 and 09.07.2025 to release outstanding amount of Rs.33,7 L,32,807/- (Rupees Thirty three crores, seventy one Lakhs, Thirty Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and seven only) along with interest @ LBo/o per annum. The respondent No.3 did not clear off the said outstanding due amount along with interest. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the court by filing the present writ petition.

4. (A) "...It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2oL4 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 20L4, the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2oL4 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of contract. we are afraid the High /t / I I \ 4 SN, J wp_27469_2025 Cogrt was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no Eqgallv, it is well settled that where the State behaves I This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2009, we direct the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the 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 accordingly." (B) The Apex Court in the iudqment reported in observecl as under: *39. A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of tJ.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, dS is expected of it, for public Aood and in public intere:;t". 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 \\ 5 SN, J w_27469-025 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) "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 requiring it to fulfil the obligation of Article L4 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 Sfafe 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 74 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 Article 14 should not extend even in the sphere of contractual matters for regulating the conduct of the State activity." (c) / / / / ?l 6 SN. J wp_27469 2025 hereunder: "The Aoex Court and this Court in catena of dggisions held that wh undisputed bills. the same is violative of Articles 14 The counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Surya Constructions Vs. State of Utter Pradesh and othe:rs, following the judgment in ABL International Ltd. Vs. Expr1l 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 worl:s. On the mere ground of pendency of Vigilance report, payrnent cannot be stopped. Accordingly, there shall be a directaon to the respon E$,Oe,828/- to the pe weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order." (D) The relevant oortion of the order of this Court dated O:3.1O.2O23 oassed under similar circumstances in 13, is extracted hereunder: '12. In the light of the pleadings and arguments referred to above, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to amounts payable under Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36.1t \\ 7 SN, J wp_27469 2025 respondents also certified. As observed above, in the present case there is no dispute as such between the parties. The only issue is with regard to release of payment under Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 by the State. No explanation is forthcoming from the respon dents as to why the amounts covered by Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 cannot be released. According 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, unreasonabre and unjust and the same cannot be countenanced.

13. This Co urt would also look into the public interest involved. The project, as informed by the rearned counser on either side, is an ongoing project and the biils worth of hundreds of crores are kept pending for no reason and there is every possibirity of non-release of payment impacting the ongoing project and the same wourd not be in pubric interest. Even for this reason, this court hords that the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Further, as there is inordinate deray in rerease 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 / / II i i I I I I t SN. J \\ p_27469_2025 petitioner, this Court holds that the respondents are liable to pay penal interest atgo/o per annum." (E)

4. It is submitted that the petitioner has supplied and in:;talled the IFPs with supportive equipment and commissioned the classrooms. The total value of the equipment supplied amounts to Rs.292,44,0L,L23/-. Out ol this, Rs.170,48,78,9101- was paid under the 1't phase and Rs.121,95,22,2L.31- was paid under the 2"d phase. Thus, a total of Rs.258 ,72,68,316/- has already been paid, leaving a balance of Rs.33,71,32,8O7/- payable to the petitioner.

5. The 2nd Respondent (Commissioner and State Project Director, School Education Department) has already submitted proposals to Government seeking sanction and release of Rs.511.92 Crores towards pending payments for completed works, including Smart Classroom payments, vicle Lr. Rc.No.364 ISS/CW 12025-26 dated 26.06.2025.

6. Further proposals for allocation of budget and release of funds were also submitted to Government vide Lr.Rc.No. 364/ SS/ CW 2025'26 dated 02.08.2025 and Lr.Rc.No.634ISS/CW12025-26 dated 24.08.2025. The matter is under active consideration of Government and orrlers are awaited.

7. It is respectfully submitted that the pending payments to the petitioner will be paid and settled with in specific time period as the required budget is to be released by the State Government, which is likely to be received shortly. consistent efforts are being made by the respondents for release of pending amounts". t I I ! 1 i 9 SN, J wp_27469 2025

5. A bare perusal of the written instructions placed before this court by the learned Assistant Government pleader appearing on behalf of the state Government i.e. State' project Director, samagra Shiksha, Telangana, Hyderabad, who fairly admits that the amounts claimed by the petitioner are undisputed and refers to the relevant portion of the written instructions in particular para Nos.4 to 7 which clearly indicate that there is no dispute insofar as the amounts Rs.33,71 ,32,8O7/- due to the petitioner herein for the petitioner's works pertaining to supply and installation of the IFps with supportive equipment and commissioned the classrooms as per the agreement entered into with the 3'd respondent for phase-I and phase-Il. 6. A bare perusal of the written instructions referred to and extracted above brought on record by the state Project Director on this day of the 12th day of November, 2025 indicates that the respondent No.2 had already submitted proposals to the Government seeking sanction and release of Rs.51t.gz crores for pending payments for completed works, including smart classroom payments vide Lr.Rc.No. 364/ss/cw tzo2s-26, dated 26.C,6.2025 / / ?: l0 SN, J \w_27469_2025 and further the proposars for ailocation of budget and release of funds were arso submitted to the Government vide Letter RC No.364/SS/CW/ 2025_26, dated 24.08.'2f.25 and the matter is under active consideration of Government and orders are awaited. 7. (er) The aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions of the rearned counser appearing on beharf of the petitioner and the tearned Assistant Government pteader, appearing on beharf of the responolents, - (cll rhe written instructions of the Director of school Education & state project Director, Samagra shiksha, Terangana, Hyderabad praced by the rearned Assistant Government preader on record before this court dated L2'..LL.2025, (referred to and extracted above), (d) The Judgment of the Apex Court dated oE.o3.2019 passed in Mrs. surya constructions vs. state of uttar pradesh and others, another Judgment in Madras Aruminium company Limited vs. Tamir Nadu SN, J wp_2'7469 2025 Electricity Board and Another dated 06.07.2o23, the judgment dated 30.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Katta Chinna Kotaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and the order of this Court dated 03.10.2023 passed under similar circumstances in W.P.No.12655 of 2023 (referred to and extracted above), The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for release of the pending payments to the petitioner as admitted in the paragraphs of the written instructions placed on record by the learned Assistant Government Pleader referred to and extracted above for Phase-I, Phase-fl and Phase-III, in accordance to law, within a period of five (5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to cost. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. ,ffRUE COPY/' SD'. A.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFI,CER . To

3. Telangana.

4. Two CCs to GP f6R gOUCATION ,High Court for the State of Telangana at S. f*fuo CCs to'Cifbn SCHOOL EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Hyderabad. IOUI Telangana at HYderabad. IP-UJJ.

6. OnJ iC to SRtivt.v.pnnrAP KIJMAR, Advocate [OPUCI 7. Two CD CoPies o\ \ SA I i i t. I I I I I C.C. TODAY I I 1 STA 3 o U 2 5 r{tfl 2028 -)b "t HIGH COURT \ DATED:1211112025 ORDER WP.No.27469 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WTHOUT COSTS. & a