The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in strpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to clear the pending bill for the subject work namely Strengthening of lnfrastructure facilities to Govt. High School, Musheerabad (V), Musheerabad (M), in Hyderabad districl covered by agreement No. 1112023-24 dated 24.04.2023 under tender notice Nl-- No. SE/TSEWIDC/HYD/ Nlrno1t2o22-23 dated 24.09.2022 forthwith pending clisposal of Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.U.BHASKARA RAO counsel for the R'-.spondents No.1,3&5 : ASST.GP FoR scHool EDUCATIoN counselfor the R*spondents No.2&4 : AGp FoR FINANGE & PLANNING counsel for the Respondents No.6 : sRt A.YADAVA REDDY, sc FoR TSEwlDc The Court made the foilowing: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.34760 OF 2O25 D4TED: 22.12.2o25 Between: M/s.BKR Constructions ...... Petitioner And The State of Telangana and Other ..Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri P.U.Bhaskara Rao, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l, 3 & 5, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 4 anrl Sri A.Yadava Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6.

2. The oetiti r aooroached the urt seekinq amended praver as under: "...to issue. a writ, order or direction more especially in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not settling and paying the bills pending for the works namely-" Strengthening of Infrastructure facilities to Govt High School Musheerabad (V), Musheerabad(M), in Hyderabad district under "Mana {i{ 2 SN. J Or>ru Mana Badi,,Scheme covered by Tender Notice vide ryrr No. sErrsEwrDc/HyD/Nrr77ol iz-ozi_zz, dt ?r..92.?9?? and asreement No.11 or zizz_ioz4 dated 24.04.2023 executed by the petitionu. ni, alrpitu tn" same was measured and recorded in measurement book by .the respondent Authorities as iffegii-inJ arbitrary and unjustified and consequenUy direci the respondent authorities to clear the oending bills for tne iuUject wort< forthwith and to pass....; e h t r averm ents madebv the eti one thED itio erinsu DO of eo under:- tn the ffid vit filed by ntWrit tionis as The petitioner is a registered crass I civir contractor who has exe(:uted various civil works under the Government ancl its undertakings and organizations. The 6th respondent on beharf of the respcndent corporation issued an onrine tender notice vide NrT No. SE/TSEWTDC/HYD/NrT/701 /2022_23 dated 24.09.2022 for work:; under the ..Mana Ooru Mana Badi,, programme, ancl the subject vrork was estimated at a total cost of Rs. 432.34 lakhs. Pursuant thereto, the 6th respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner for execution of the subject .work vide Agreement No. 1112023-24 dated 24.04.2023. The value of the work exer:uted and measured by the authorities is approximately Rs. 2,30,00,000/-. However, payment of the said amount has Tqh. d i:. ii' ii' 3 SN. J been pending with the respondent authorities for the past two years. Aggrieved by the non-payment of the pending dues by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

5. Learned counsel aopearino on behalf of the oetitioner mainly outs-forth the followinq submissions:; i) The petitioner, being an eligible contractor participated in the tender process in pursuance to the notification issued vide proceedings Rc.No.NIT No.SE/TSEWIDC lhVd/NlT l7OLl2022-23, dated

24.09.2022, inviting tenders for the work namely "Strengthening of Infrastructure facilities to Government High School, Musheerabad(V), Musheerabad(M), in Hyderabad District under "Mana Ooru-Mana Badi" program launched by respondent State Government. ii) The petitioner, being a successful bidder entered into an agreement with the 6th respondent vide : i I I I I l 4 SN, J agreement No.1tl2023-24, dated 24.o,4.2023. The 6th respondent further issued proceedings, dated 24.o,4.2023 entrusting the execution of the subject work to the petitioner vide work order, dated 24.o4.2023. iii) The petitioner proceeded with the execution of contract work in accordance to the terms and conditions of the agreement, dated 24.o,4.2(J23 entered into between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. The works executed by the petitioner were duly measured and recorded in the measurement book by the executing Authority i.€., 6th respondent herein. The proposals for release of funds were forwarded by the 6th respondent to the Government vide letters, dated

26.06.2025, t4.O7.2025, O2.O8.2O25, 24,08.2(J25 and 24.10.2025, but however Government had not passed any orders on the said proposals as on date. Though the petitioner executed the works to an extent of Rs.2,3O,OO,OOO/- (Two Crores and thirty lakhs rupess), yet the respondent 5 SN, J Authorities have been deraying the final bilr for more than two (02) years without assigning any reasons without any justification, despite there being no dispute with regard to the work executed by the petitioner herein, since, the executing Authority i.e., the 6th respondent has already forwarded the proposats for release of the amounts as per petitioner,s entiflement. i I I I I IIl,r 6 SN, J await€',c!g 7 SN. J t' The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 8. respondent No.3, in oarticular para Nos. 4 to 8 are extracted hereunder:-

4. I respectfully submit that the Superintending Engineer TGEWIDC is the executing agency responsible for overseeing the progress and technical supervision of the works. As per the established procedure, after the bills are raised and submitted online by the executing agency, the initiation of Fund Transfer Orders (FTOs). Once the FTOs are approved, the District Collector is forwarding the same to the State Finance Controller, Government of Telangana, for the release of payments to the contractor. l{G Itarrl trtstlt rrclraarllrrd I rlzlrc Arrar.tli rrf Qe ? na. LA trtrrt rrrrrtrrrtl r$ E rrarlrinirrrr Musheerabad Main Road, Musheerabad (M) in Hyderabad has been proposed for release of funds bv the District Collector Hvderabad. 6. I further submit that necessary proposals for release of funds/clearance of pending payments have been submitted to Government vide Lr.No.364lSSlCW 12025-26, Dt:26.O6.2025, Lr.No.364lSSlCW 12025'26, Dt: 14.07 .2O25,Lr. No.634/SS I CW I 2fJ25-26, DI:O2.O8 .2025 Lr.No.364lSSlCW 12025-26, Dt:24.O8.2025 and Lr.No. 364155/CW 12025-26, DI:24.LO.2O25 Orders of the Government on the above proposals are awaited.

7. I submit that the project is being implemented under the Mana Ooru Mana Badi (MOMB) Programme, and as per the funding mechanism, the required funds are to be released by the State Government. It is expected that the oendinq bills will be cleared oromptlv 'uoon receiot of the necessarv funds from thq Government. B. I submit that in view of the facts and circumstances detailed above, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble n{ 8 SN, J Hi,3h Court may kindly consider the factual matrix, as the delay in payment is procedural in nature and not atl:ributable to any willful neglect or inaction on part of the Respondent.

9. Tlre relevant oortio iudoment dated 0t8.O3.2019 oassed in M/s. Surva Constructions Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reoorted in (2O19) 16 SCC 794 oassed bv the Two Judoe Bench of the Aoex Court in Civil Apoeal No.261O of 2O19 (Arisino out of SLP (C) No.ll9505 of 2O14), is extracted hereunder: "...It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2Ot4 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 02.05.2014 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 wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount pavable to the appellant is whollv undisputed. Eouallv, it is well settled that where the State behaves arhitrarilv- even in the realm af contract- the High 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' L2OO4 (3) scc ss3)t. This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2009, we direct the Uttar 9 SN. J 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.,,

10. The Aoex court in the judoment reoo.ted in (2o23) 8 scc 24o in Madras Aluminium comoanv Limited vs. Tamil Nadu Electricitv Board and Another vide iudoment Aatea O6.OZ.ZOZS, as under: "39. A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of U.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 while exercising its powers and discharging its functions "acts indubitably, os is expected of it, for public good 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 L4.

40. Further the Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi case4 had observed that: (SCC p.231, 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 ail l0 SN, J the characteristics ot tle l::::,illIJ[ffiill: l-l;Lt" m' :? i,;,H'# iilliiirn stituti o n a n d thereafte' pt'*1"ing it to- cast off its gaib of robe of a private bodv state to adorn'il; ;* durinll the subsitt"""" of the contract enabling subiect onlY to the it to act ";;;;;lt' flowing contractual toit'n"iiJt'Td--t"-edies the na-ture of its personality "i' from it. It is '"lttV ,' ritate *;;;;' 'isno'flilnr1!1", ?;i;, Jarercterize all its actions' 1 tunction' contactual or and not ,tot lri"i"'i othe'rwise, which is dectsil? * the nature of scrutiny p"'^i'n"d for examining the validity of of-ArtiZte 74 beins the its act' ne )'eiiti"'*' and reasonabty' there dutv'to act is n'othing whtrci militates against the concep't of n=q u i r i n n ii-"- t"-? t y:E:"t#"i1;J'il: i:lr:r'J#'f.f .i"!!i^ ;" which must a invariably ; ii-puuric interest and those 'of similar activities' private it'aiia'"[ "igtg"d'in beirns pti*"'tiJ;;t;;;n1l eain' which mav or puulic inierest' viewed in mav not dil;; iina no conceptual thi:; matter' in wlrich- -*" difficutty ot ttt"ttronism' we find no reason of-:'rticte 14 shoutd not the tpi"n of contractual wh'Y the ';';;;;':-' i' matters rcl',r"iut'ting the conduct of the State extend "'Jn-- '-'i;;'-jisuv activitY."

11. hereunder: : I sN, j held that re is 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 bilrs 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 thpt the bills are submitted without executing the works. On the mere ground of pendency of Vigilance report, payment cannot be stopped. Accordinglv. there L2. Pr"d.rh ir Mrtrrr" v"..rr"nk"t. s"tyan"."rar" ,s. Th" hereunder: "8. The provisions of the Act make it clear that is a welfare legislation meant to create *--5a= I t2 SN, J employment/eradicate unemployment in rural 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 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 arbitrary 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.,,

13. The relevant qortion of iudqment gla]Egd 22.O3.2O22 passed by the Hioh Court of Andhra hd-gsh in w.P.No.2511 of 2022- in oarticular oaraoraoh Nos.Zi and 24. is extracted hereunder: "23) The High Court of Andhra pradesh in J, Devendra Reddy v Kakatiya Universitv and I r3 SN, J another reported in 2015 (3) ALD 97, held that withholdino of the amount oayable to the oetitioner for the contract works, constitutes patent arbitrariness on the part of the resoondents and directed the respondents to oav the amount due to the petitioner along with interest @ 12olo per annum. S. Srinivas vs. State of Andhra pradesh and others reported in 2021 (5) ALT 267 held that the petitioner is entitled for the interest @ 12olo o.a., from the date of expiry of one month from the date of submission of biil to titt the date of payment." 14- The relevant portion of the iudqment dated 21.o4.2o25 passed bv this court in w.p.No.11744 of 2o25 in oarticular oaraoraph No.5. is extracted hereunder: "5. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ petition bv directing the resoondent authorities to release the admitted bill amount of Rs.1.16.51 734.00 possible, oreferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receiot of a copv of the order. No costs." 15- The relevant oortion of the order of this court dated 03.10.2023 passed under similar circumstances in w.P.No.12655 of 2o23 in oarticular oaraqraph Nos.12 and 13. is extracted hereunder: l4 SN, J fGrrnrr nar alca fn Crrrrn fanctrr "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. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time that writ jurisdiction per se cannot be denied merelv because the dispute arose out of a commercial contract as held in Surya Constructions' case (Supra 1), ABL International Limited's case (Supra 2) and Century Spinning and Manufacturing Comoany Limited's case (Supra ?\ Hon'ble Supreme Court granted relief to the petitioner therein taking note of the fact that bills oayable to the oetitioner were undisouted. In the instant case, the oetitioner stands on a better footing 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 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 Additional Advocate General that oetitioners have to aporoach civil Court even for payment of admitted bills runs contrarv to the settled leoal proposition. 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 l5 SN, J 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 bv the subject bills bv the respondents to the petitioner without any justification. in the opinion of this Court, the resoondents are liabl€ to pay penal interest. Howevef, as against the claim of 18o/o per annum sought bv the petitioner. this Court holds that the respondents are liable to pay penal interest at 9olo per annum."

16. Taking into consideratiqn:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for school Education appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 5. c) The counter affidavit filed on behatf of the respondent No.3, in oarticular oara Nos. 4 to 8 (referred to and extracted abovel (d) The observations in the judgments referred to and extracted above and enlisted below: (i) (2o1e) 16 SCC 794, t- "F- |,j I I i . I i. ,l ,! i I I I i l6 (ii) (2023) 8 SCC 24O, SN, J ( iii) MAN U I AP / 0721 / 2022, (iiv) 2O21 SCCOntine Ap !41O, ('rr) The judgment dated 2z.og.2ozz passed by the High court of Andhra pradesh in w.p.No.2511 0f 2022, (ri) The judgment dated zr.o4.zo25 passed by this C,ourt in W.p.No.1.t744 ol 2O25, (vii) The order dated 03.10.2023 passed by this Crcurt in W.p.No.12655 of 2O23, (e) Ttre discussion and concrusion as arrived at para Nos. 5 to 15 of the present order. (f) The fact as borne on record which estabrishes that the work executed by the petitioner'is not disputed by the executing Authority i.e., the 6th respondent herein, who had forwarded proposats for retease of funds,/r:learance of pending payments, as specificafly averred' at para No.6 0f the counter affidavit fired on behalf rcf the respondent No.3(referred to and extracted above) (g) The specific preas of the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 5 with regard to the delay in payments to the petitioner. t7 SN, J (h) The clear admission that the pending biils would be cleared promptly upon receipt of the necessary funds from the Government. The Writ Petition is disoosed of di resoondents to consider the reouest of the oetitioner for release of the admitted amounts as per the orooosals forwarded to the Government as stated at para No.6 of the counter affidavit filed on beharf of the respondent No.3 (referred to and extracted abovel and pass aporooriate orders on the said orooosals for retease of funds'clearance of pendinq payments submitted to the .r, .025-26, dated Government vide Lr.No.364 26.06.2025 14.O7.2O25 Lr.No.634 O2.O8.2O25 Lr.No.364 ^ 24.O8.2O25 and Lr.No.364 ^s/CW -O25-26. dated Z+. tO.ZOZS. perta Lr.No.364 s .V ^025-26 . ' ^O25-26 .., ^O25-26 'Strenotnenino of High school. Musheerabad(v'r. Musheerabad(Ml, in Hvdera bad District under "Man Ooru-Mana Badi" prooram launched by state Government and covered bv : I t i t' I I I I ! l T r8 Notice e SN, J NIT

24.o9.12022 and aoreement No.11 of 2o23-24. dated 24.o4.12o23. within a oeriod of four (04) weeks from the dalEe ott receiot of the copv of the order, in accordance to [a!nr.-as oer petitioner's leqar entiflement. dulv takino into eons!-d!:ration the observations in the judoments of the Apex--(lourt and other courts (referred to and extracted above) and duly communicate the decision on the subject lssue-tlr the oetitioner. However. there shall be no orders as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, Petition, shall stand closed. if otry, pending in this Writ SD/. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER Telangana State, To, 1 2 3 The Principal Secretary, Education Departm Saifabal, HYderabad. The PrinciPal Secretary, Telangerna State' Saifabad The Co mmissioneriDirecto Hyderatcad Finance and Planning Department' Secretariat' , Hyderabad. r,,schoolEducation,stateofTelangana'Saifabad' 4. The District collector and District Magistrate,, Hyderabad District' collectorate 5. The District Educational officer and Ex- officio" District Project officer' Samagra Shiksha, HYderabd' 6. The Superintending Engineet" Telangana-ll?I9 Education and Welfare lnfrastructure Development corporatio"n, (TSEWIDC) District collectorate complex, B-30; lno ioz, srd aJor, sn"n"'silver Jubilee Bhavan, Lakdi-Ka- Pool, t-lYderabad - 500 004 ,\\ Complerx, Lakdi-Ka-Pool, Hyderabad t Hvi.rru"O louTt 7 . One CC to SRI P'U'BHASKARA RAO' Advocate' TOPUCI R Two ccs to Gp FoR EDucAxo; *1ni court toy lne .,' e +'3,h?tr"':,?i,::"ffiIAE: 10.one cc t9 *io."oDAvA "?jld:,;"t1,;;53n,T3,State ' "' ili"itui" lnfrastructure Developm 11.Two CD CoPies' - PLANNTNG', F state of Telansana' at / tigh Court for the State of Education and BSK GJPw HIGH COIURT DATED i 2).211212025 \ \ =E=: I CC TODAY t-iI E 'F.t4') \ i-) .t ,J I2 A RP 2026 -l- ,." ..\.- t: ORDER WP.No.34760 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I \5 c.of("b #{, - :. ..1;". .