JGEWIDC, Nalgonda vs Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the

Counsel for ther Petitioner: SRI ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNTNG Counsel for thr: Respondent No.5 & 6: SRI A.YADAVA REDDY, SC FOR TSEWIDC Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI K.PRADEEP KUMAR, SC FOR Zpp The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF NGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.3O4O4 OF 2O25 DATE: O1.12.2O25 Between: Sri Madda Bhaskar. And The State of Telangana & 6 Others ORDER: Petitioner ... Respondents Heard Sri Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for School Education, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, Sri A. Yadava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSEWIDC, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.S and 6 and Sri K. Pradeep Kumar, learned Standing Counsel lor ZPP appearing on behalf of respondent No.7. 2 SN, J wp_30404_2025 2 as under: "...to issue a writ order or direction more particurarry a wril: of Mandamus decraring the action of thl respondents in not releasing the amounts for the civir works executed by the petitioner i.e. infrastructure Deveropment, in ziila Prajaparishat High School,Ganugabanda, Garidepalle Marrdal, suryapeta District, Under Mana-ooru Mana Badi schrlme, as arbitrary and iilegar and viorative of Articre- 14,:t9(1)g and 2L of the Constitution of India, and conrsequenfly direct the respondents here in to rerease the amount of Rs.LG,g5,2zsl-with 1go/o interest from the date of actual due and payment and pass...,,. 3 sriooort maae :n tne arria The petitioner is a registered class-II civil contractor and has beerr successfuily executing various Government civir works for several years. The Government of Terangana raunched a comprehensive programme tiued ..Mana ooru / Mana Badi / Mana Basti - Mana Badi" for deveropment and strengthening of infrastructure in Government and Locar Body schoors. Administrative sanction for the said programme was accorded vide G.o.Ms.No.4, schoot Education (prog-I) Department, dated 03.02.2C'22. The District coilector is the competent authority to \ \ 3 SN, J wp_30404_2025 accord administrative sanction for each project and to select an implementing agency on the basis of "One Mandal One Implementing Agency", and the Implementing Agency is responsibte for granting component-wise technica! sanction. The petitioner's agency was entrusted with the work relating to Infrastructure Development in Government School, Ganugabanda, Garidepalle Mandal, Praja Parishad High School, Suryapet District, and as per the agreement and instructions of the officials, the petitioner immediately commenced and completed the work in all respects within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that after completion of the work, the respondents prepared 11 bills amounting to Rs.2t,72,2941- towards payment for the completed works and forwarded the same to respondent No.3 Director of School Education, Hyderabad, for release of funds. The respondents also issued a Fund Transfer Order to the petitioner in the month of January,

2025. However, despite issuance of the FTO and repeated requests, the petitioner was paid only Rs.4,77,0691-, and the balance amount of Rs. 16,95,225/- remains unpaid. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. .-l a

4. (A) 4 SN, J wp_30404_2025 NALGONDA BRrEF NOTE ON WO8K

1. Name of the work

2.Admin istrative Sa nction Strengthening of Infrastructure Facilities ZPHS Ganugabanda(V) Garidepally (M) in Suryapot District... Under Mana vooru Mana Badi programme. Procgs. No. 3630170 LLO3/ 00000 1/MOM B- M BM Bl 2022_23 Dt:25-05-2022 of the District Collector, Suryapet.

3. Estimate Cost : Rs. 29,24,63L/-

4. Name of the Agency School Management Committee ZPHS Ganugabanda.

5. Stage of the work 1 ) Electrification completed 2) Major & Minor Repairs work in progress. 3) Drinking water supply work in Progress. 4) Dining halt Completed. 5) New Class rooms Completed.

6. Expenditure incurred Rs. 4,77,069/- \ \ 5 SN, J wp_30404_2025 7 Balance amount required : Rs. 16,95,2251- Executive Engineer, JGEWIDC, Nalgonda B) The relevant oortio iudoment dated O8.O3.2O19 oassed in M/s. Surva Constructions Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reoorted in (20191 16 SCC 794 oassed bv the Two Judoe Bench of the Apex Court in Civil Aooeal No.261 of 2O19 (Arisino out of SLP (Cr No.29505 of 2014), is extracted hereunder: "...It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2014 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 2OL4, 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 High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount oavable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equallv, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the Hioh Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [ 'ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Exoort Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others' (2OO4 (3) scc s53)I. T 6 SN, J wp_10404_2025 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.,, (c) observed as under: "39. A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of tJ.P.4 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 whire 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 fails into the contractuar rearm does not rerieve 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 personarity of Dr.Jekyil and Mr. Hyde in the contractual field so as to impress on it all the \ \ 7 SN, ] wp_10404 2025 characteristics of the state at the threshold while making a contract requiring it to fulfil the obligation of Article t4 0f the constitution and thereafter permittingittocastoffitsgarbofStatetoadornthe newrobeofaprivatebodyduringthesubsistenceof the contract enabling it to act arbitrarily subject only tothecontractualobligationsandremediesflowing fromit.Itisreallythenatureofitspersonalityas stafe 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 validityofitsact.TherequirementofArticle14 beingthedutytoactfairly,justlyandreasonably, there is nothing which militates against the concept of requiring the Sfafe 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, engagedinsimilaractivities,beingprimarilyfor personalgain,whichmayormaynotpromotepublic interest.Viewedinthismatter,inwhichwefindno conceptualdifficultyoranachronism,wefindno 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"' ' (D) The retevant oortion of the iudoment clated 3O.04.2O22 oassect bv the Hiqh Court of Andhra Pradesh in Katta Chinna Kotaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reoortect in MANU/AP10721 ^022' is extracted hereunder: "The Apex Court and this Court in catena there is non- that wh isions pavment of the undisputed bills' the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the 8 SN, J lvp_10404_2025 Constitution of fndia. The counsel for the petitioner rightly placed retiance 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 supri. In view of the Apex Court judgment, the contention of the learned Government pleader that the writ petition is not maintainable before t,his Couft could not be countenanced. The bills of the petitioner dated 13.3.2019 are adm itted by the respondents and forwarded for payment after due measurements and obtaining quality control and the Vigilance report. Hence, the autho rities are estopped from statin g that the bills are submitted without executing the works On the mere ground of pendency of Vigitance re port, payment can not be stopped. Accordinqlv. there (E) t, hereunder: "8. The provisions of the Act make it crear that it is a welfare legislation meant to create employment/eradicate unemproyment in rurar ar€as and in the process to create durable assets for rural India. Thus, it is crear that a pubric erement is involved in these works with State participation and funding. The ..States,, presence is therefore all \ \ ! I 'l 9 SN. J wp_10404_2025 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 it is not a pure case of the State entering into a commercial contract.

9. Apart from this when State or State instrumentalities act in an arbitrarv 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 Couft 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." (F) The relevant oortion of the iudoment dated 22.O3.2O22 oassed bv the Hioh Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.2511 of 2O22 in oarticular oaraqraoh Nos.23 and 24, is extracted hereunder: "23) The Hiqh Court of Andhra Pradesh in J. Devendra Reddv v Kakativa University and another reported in 2Ol5 (3) ALD 97, held that withholding of the amount payable to the petitioner for the contract works, constitutes patent arbitrariness on the part of the respondents and directed the resoondents to ( l0 SN. J wp_10404_2025 Dayment." (c) order. No costs.,, (H) *12. In the light of the p leadings and arguments referred to above, it is clea r that there is no dispute with regard to amounts payable under Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 \ \ SN, J wp_10404_2025 writ jurisdiction per se cannot be denied merely because the dispute arose out of a commercial Manufacturing Company Limited'F ,case (Suora 3). In Surva Constructions'case (Supra 1), the bills payable to the petitioner were undisputed. In the instant case, the petitioner stands on a better footing as the bills of the petitioner are not only admitted but 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 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. 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, unreasonable and unjust and the same cannot be countenanced.

13. The contention of the learned oetitioners have to approach civil Court even for pavment of admitted bills runs contrary to the settled legal prooosition. 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 wotth 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 jurisdiction. Further, as there is inordinate delay in release of payments covered by the subject bills by i I I I I I I I I I It' .T i I t2 SN, J wp 30404_2025 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 fbozo per annum sought by the petitioner, this court hords that the respondents are riabre to pay penar interest at go/o per annum.,, DISC!,SSION AND CONCLUSION:- 5' r-he rearned counser appearing on beharf of respondent Nos'5 and 6, who are the executing authority, dury pracing written instructions on record brings to the notice of this court that the petitioner had executed ail the works pertaining to strengthening of the Infrastructure Facirities to zpHs, Ganugabanda viilage, Garidepaily Mandar in suryapet District under "Mana vooru Mana Badi programme,, and administrative sanction had arso been accorded to that effect vide Procas'No'36301701 103/000001/MOMB-MBMB/ 2022-23, dated 25.05.2'.022 bV the District Collector, Suryapet. It is further clearry borne on record that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have arso forwarded the biils to respondent No.2 and accordingry, the fund transfe. atso has been made, and the same is in fact evident from the materiar document fired by the petitioner as Exhibit P13. E',ren as per the written instructions brought on record by the learred counser appearing on beharf of respondent Nos.5 and 6' it is crear that though the project had a estimated cost of \ \ l3 SN, J wp_10404_2025 Rs.29,24,63L/-, the petitioner was paid only Rs.4 ,77,0691-, and the balance amount of Rs.16,95,?zs/- remained unpaid. It is further acmifted that an amount of Rs. L6,gs,2z5/- is yet to be released to the petitioner in respect of the works executed by the petitioner. This court opines that in vier of the fact as borne on record and undisputed even by the learned counsel appearing on belralf of the respondent Nos.5 and s-that bill amounts payable to the petitioner amounting to Rs. L6,gs,z2sl- remain unpaid as on date the petitioner herein is entitled for grant of relief as prayed for as per the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court dated 08.03.2019 passed in M/s. surya constructions Vs state of Uttar pradesh and others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 794. 6. Takino into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counset for TSEWTDC, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.S and 6, c) The transfer order filed vide material document i.e., Ex.P13 by the petitioner herein indicating that the i 1 t4 SN, J wp_30404_2025 amounrt had already been transferred in respect of the said works executed by the petitioner. (d) The observations in the judgmentb referred to and extracted above and enlisted below: (ii) (2019) 16 SCC 7s4, (iii) (2023) I SCC 24O, (iiii) MAN U / AP / O72r 120.22, (iiv) 2O21 SCCOntine Ap L4tO, ('v) The judgment dated ZZ.O1.2O22 passed by the High court of Andhra pradesh in w.p.No.zsr 1 of 2(,22, ('ui) The judgment dated zt.o4.zo2s passed by this Court in W.P.No.tl744 of 2025, ('uii) The order dated o3.1o.2o23 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12655 of 2O23,, \ \ l5 SN, J w_30404-025 observation of the Apex Court and other Courts in the iudgments (referred to and extracted above) and further. disburse the admitted pending bill amounts oertaining to the civil works executed by the "petitioner i.e., Infrastructure Development in Zilla Praiaparishad High School, Ganuqabanda, Garidepalle Mandal, Suryaoet Fticlriei rrnrlar Mana-artrrr mrnrhrrli Galrarna oetitioner herein as per the petitioner's legal entitlement within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. /ffRUE COPY/ S KAR REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Prl. Secretary, Education Department' Telanga na State, State of Telangana' 2. The Commi ssioner/ Director of SchooI Education Telangana, at Lakdi-ka-pool' Buildings, HYderabad, Near TelePhone Bhavan, HYderabad The District Collector , SuryaPeta District. 3 4 The Prl. Secretary, Fi nance DePartment, Secretariat Buildings, HYderabad, Telangana State. 5. The Vice-chairman and Managing Director, Telangana st{9.- Education Welfare and lnfrastructure oeveto,pnn,ent Corporation, 4th Floor, RVM Building' SCERT Compound, LB Stadium, Hyderabad' -Ganugabanda' Garidepalle [vlandal, Suryapeta Disirict, Rep.By ilt-Ig3d Master'

6. The Executive Engineer.TSEWlDC, Nalgonda, Nalgonda_District. .. t 7. The Zila p.;dffi;i Hign schoot, 8. One cc to sRinrlronirnilt SANJEEV KUMAR, Advocate [oP^u-cl g.OneCCtoSRln.ynOnVnREDDY'SCFORTSEWIDCIOPUCI 10.one cc to snl k.pnnDEEP KUMAR, SC FOR ZPP [oPUC] 11.Two ccs to Gp ioR EOUCnrtoN, Hign court for the State of Telangana, at 12.Two CCs to CC'fOn REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI Hyderabad [OUI I I

13.Two CC;s to Gp FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, High court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

14.Two CD CoPies BSR I I CC TODAY HIGH COI..IRT DATED: 01 11212025 t \ ORDER WP.No.30404 of 2025 1 U.lr t. i'rt.rl5 t: 3 25i'lflzozb i -.q, n.... tl " rr. I .'r ''l/ "-' li ""t *' ."1.i. I I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS e