M/s. Jayee Solutions v. consequenfly direct the

Order

Heard Sri p.U.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Schoo! Education, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 5, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & planning appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.z & 4 and Sri A.yadava Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6. 2 ti n h Cou amended Draver as un er: "-..to issue a writ, order or direction more especially in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not setuing and paying the bills pending for the works namely- Repairs and Renovation to Govt-. HS Police Boys CpL Grounds, Hyderabad, M. Corporation (V), Amberpet (M), Hyderabad under ..Mana Ooru_Mana 2 s\. r P:91^_.lgyuluo by Tender Notice vide NrT No. E E/rs E wr DCIH yDl M o M B_ M BM B/N rrlo u ziiz _ zz, d x.a loii_zizz autua 11y ?0?? and asreement No.47 12.0t.2023 despite the same *ur--r"i"r."O and recorded in measurement book unO .".or.!nOed for pay.ment by the respondent Authorities ai itiegat anO arbitrary and unjustified and .onr"qr""tlV ,n" respondent authorities to clear the pe'ndin!'bills for the subject work forthwith and to purr...l, 'j,.u., 't Th se of er en m e e iti eri h h under: - t n e r se w P ta nt b a The petitioner is a registered Class III Civil Contractor who has executed various civil works under the Government and its undertakings and organizations. The 6th respondent on beharf of the respondent corporation issued an online tender Notice vide NIT No. EEITS EWrDC/HYD/M OMB_ M BMB/NIT/O 1 / 2022_ 23, d ated L4.12.2022 for works under the ,,Mana Ooru Mana Badi,, programme, and the subject work was estimated at a totar cost of Rs. 33,90.612/-. pursuant thereto, the 6th respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner for execution of the subject work vide Agreement No. 47/2022_23, dated 12.01.2023. The value of the work executed and measured by the authorities is approximately Rs. 26,77,471/_. However, i 7 J SN. J 1 I payment of the said amount has 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. DISCUSSTON AN CONCLUSION:-

5. Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the Detataoner mainlv outs-forth the followino submissions:- i) The petitioner, being an eligible contractor participated in the tender process in pursuance to the notification issued vide proceedings vide NIT No. EElTSEWIDC/HYD/MOMB- MBMB/NIT/OLl2022-23, dated L4.12.2022, inviting tenders for the work namely "Repairs and Renovation to Govt. HS Police Boys CPL Grounds, Hyderabad, M. Corporation (V), Amberpet (M), Hyderabad District" under "Mana Ooru-Mana Badi" program launched by respondent State Government. l 4 SN. J ii ) The petitioner, being a successful bidder entered into an agreement with the 6th respondent vide agreement No.47 / 2O22-23, dated 12'O1'2023' iii) The petitioner proceeded with the execution of contract work in accordance to- the terms and conditions of the agreement, dated 12'01'2023 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.e., 6th respondent herein' The proposals for release of funds were forwarded by the 6th respondent to the Government, 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.26,77,47L1-, yet the respondent Authorities have been delaying the final bill for more than two (O2) years without assigning any reasons without any justification, despite there being no dispute with regard to the work executed by the ) SN. J petitioner herein, since, the executing Authority i.e., the 6th respondent has already forwarded the proposals for release of the amounts as per petitioner's entitlement.

Based o the aforesaid su bmissions, learned counsel aooear nq on behalf of the Detitioner contends t at the oetitioner is entitled for the relief as Draved for bv the Detitioner i n the oresent writ oetition.

6. Lea ed Assistant Government Pleader for School Education aooearino on beh lf of the resDonde t Nos.1. 3 &s does not dis ute the fact that the oetitioner conclu ed the contra entrusted to the oetitione r vide the aoreem ent executed with the 6th resDondent. dated L2.OL.2O23, but h wever olac q reliance on the averments made an the counter affi avit filed on behalf of the resDondent No. in oart cu lar Dara Nos.4 to I d r v n h I s cl o s m Lr. 0.364/ss/cw /202s-26,

26.06.2 25, i I I I I l I l j l I l I I I I Il- 6 Lr.No. 364/Ss/cw/ 2025-26. r s cw 20 4 6 r.No. 64 s w 20 5- 6 SN. J

14.07.20 5. d a d2 0 2 5 o 2 5 an Lr No 364 s c 2 25- 6 da d

10. o d a ov n nt nth r o o awaited. 7 Le rn e du ti &5 further con tends n Assistan Govern ment Plead er tn on 3 th at the dela van DAvment to the tN s r ch ol al nn t a eli er e cti u iti ner or on en and f rth r lea r d u n c e a t lon on h e n I e en n w ul h b h e s r J e overnm nt. I r T e n a fi d N 3 r r a 4 a extracted hereunder:- 4. I respectfully submit.that the Executive Engineer, TGEWIDC, Hyderabad is the executing agency entrusted iritn tn" technicar supervision and monitoring of the works. As per the prescribeJ 7 SN. J procedure/ upon submission of the bills online by the executing agency, the process for Initiation of Fund Transfer Orders (F[OS) is undertaken. After approval of the FTOS, the District Collector, Hyderabad, forwards the same to the State Finance Controller, Government oF Telangana, for release of payments to the contractor. f 3O.08 Lakhs oertain inq to 5 Accordinolv, n amount the work at Govt HS Police Bovs, CPL Grounds. Am eroet Mand I in Hvde abad District has b en DroDos d for eDi Colle

6. f further submit that necessary proposals for release of funds / clearance of pending payments have been submitted Government vide Dt: Lr.No.364lSS/CW /2025-26, 26.06.2025. Dt: Lr.No.364,/SS/CW /2025-26, L4.O7.ZO2S, Lr.No.534lSS/CW /2025-26, DI:O2.08.2O25, Lr.No.354lSS/CW/2025-26, Dt: 24.08.2025 and Lr.No. 364/55/CW/2O25-26t Dt:24.1 O.2O25 orders of the Government on the above proposats are awaited. 7. I submit that the project is being Implemented under the Mana Ooru Mana Badi (MOMB) programme. funding pattern, the required funds are to be rele e State Government. The omotlv uoon receaDt of funds from the Govern ment. As per the ased by th cleared Dr endino bills will be

8. I submit that, in view of the above facts, the delay in payment is purely procedural and not due to any willful negligence or inaction on the part of the respondents. Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may consider the factual position. 9 e n dated 08.03.2019 Dassed in M/s. Surva Constructio ns Vs. Stat of Uttar Pradesh nd othe rs reoo scc 794 oassed bv the T wo -ludo in (2O1 )16 e Bench of the I I I t 8 Civil (c) N o.29 5O5 of 20L4t. is extracted ereun er: al o.2 1 ol 2 19 srn out SN,,I s "...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 20t4, 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 af aid Hi r v h c d.a An h u tn h of In d o n u u n E A In m h 226 r n Corooration ofI ndia Ltd. and scc 553 )I. thers' (20o4 J3) This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2OO9, we direct the Uttar Pradesh lal 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. s EA Co m n 2 3 2 c L d m N uEl rtc! B r d other v 7 9 SN. J 0 h s asunder: "39. A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Shritekha 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, as 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 t4. 4c., 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 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 remedles flowing from it. It is reatly the nature of its Personality as State which is significant and must characterize alt its actions, in whatever field, and not the nature of function, contractual or otherwise, which is decisive of the nature of + /J 10 SN. J scrutiny permitted for examining the vatidity of its act. The requirement of Articte 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 Article 74 should not extend even in the sphere of contractual matters for regulating the conduct of the State activity."

11. oortio n f i udo dated 30.o4.2022 Dassed bv the Hioh Court of Prad esh in Katta Chinn Kotaiah vs. The State of Andhra Prad esh reDorted in MANU/APlO 721t202 is extr cted hereu nder: t t "The Aoex Court an this Court in catena of decisions held that when there is non- pavment of the undisouted bills, the same is violative of Articles L4 and 16 of the Con st u ion of Ind a 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 SN, J o maintainable before this Court could not be countenanced. The bills of the petitioner dat 13.3.2019 are adm itted by the respondents a forwarded for paYment after due measurements and btaining quality control and the Vigilance report. ence, the authori ties are esto pped from stating that the bills are subm itted without executing the works On the mere grou nd of penden cy of Vigilance report. payment cannot be stopped. Accordinotv. there H d r L2. Th e eva n t D n 1 Pr de h tn M u I Sta e of An hr d t 1 he eund er: I u om ent t Veerav nk t sa an ravana vs Th e o 2 1 s con line AP re D Prad s a r r h t ,'9. The provisions " *.,i"." '''i.;]-?t.ln" Act make it clear that t is emptoyment/e;;",:"'r':11": meant to create and in rhe ;;il;;.::-":plovment in rural areas durable assets for rural India. rhu{, l;";r" :;."t'e u public element is tnvolved in these *o.k, :lut- fundins. rh;'-";;#; with-State participation and ,.n lf*nce is therefore all pervasive in *i, The law on the interpretation of *u,r"r'""',.uTe' n"oui'J='i::':l:t':" is also very crear' As held jnctraing K.H.Nazar v tlathew x .1".o0".'uru"orrl?r court of India Juoges ought ,o o" ..ll-lupreme content unoinu;;";,:;1t"t"ed with the colour in view "r ur" ,"tir.l"il :r-.1 ,srarures,,, rherefore and keeping in mina ttrl 'n '- \ \ , SN. J 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. ADart f rom this when State or State i nstrum entalities act tn an arbitrarv m nner or fai I to act within rme theW t court doe have IU risdiction to entertain the m tter. 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 re leva nt dated 22.O3.2022 oassed b ortion of the Hioh Court of And h ra iud oment Pradesh in W.P.N o.25lL ol 2O22. in Da icular oaraora Dh Nos. 3 and 24 is extracted hereu n der '23) The Hioh Court of Andhra Prad sh ln J. Dev endra Reddv v Kakati a Universi another reported in 2015 (31 ALD 97, held that hea ()U nt o vah eto the withhol n r n r resD ndents nd direc dther esoonden ts to a d interest @ L2olo oer annu m. h h r rlne t 24) The Hioh Cou rt f v 20 5 f Andhra Prad hin LT2 h h titioner is entitled for the terest @ 12olo r J - - rritt EEEE1- SN, ', p.a,, from the date of exparv of one month from o su bmission of bill to till the date of f the da payment." L4. o 1 4 hi c P 744 5 r hN x r to the su missions of both "5. H vano reoa the learned counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ Petition bv directino the respondent authorities to release the admitted bill amount of Rs.1,16,51, 734.OOl due to the petitioner' as exDeditaouslv as possible, preferablv within a period of six (6) : en he rlrla af '6-6irrt ^f f order. N o costs." The rele ant Dortion of th order of this Co rt dated

15. 03.1 2023 passed under similar ca rcu msta nc sln W.P.No.12655 of 2O23 in particular paraoraph Nos.12 and 13, is extracted here u nder: " 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. tt has been held bv the Hon'ble supreme Court from time to time that writ jurisdiction per se cannot be denied merelv because the disDute ar e out of a commercial . a.irrc+rrra+iarhc' raca rc hald tn Crr -.rrrtr..f /Grrnrr ?ntar rlianr! I irnilad'e (Suora 2) and nturv SDinnino and Manufacturino ComDan Limited's case (SuDra ^El .:ca ISJ I4 I s H n r bi lls DA ya ble to th e c k SN. J I r n r titio ner we I e u di D ted. h n s observed o above, e 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 respo ndents as to why the amounts covered by Bill Nos .34,35 and 36 cannot be released. Accordin g to the respondents, Biil Nos.34,35 and 36 are ending for want of budgeta p clea ra nce, On the f,ace of it , action of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and the same cannot be countena nced.

13. T o h f n r h h d n t h t o b o e tr r u s This Court would also took into the j ubltc 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 warrant rng interference in writ jurisdiction h n n n H ow on en ever, as aq n tt he cla !m t n r t s a of 1a o/o t5 SN. J holds that the respondents are liable to pav oena I interest at 9olo Der an um.

16. Ta kino into consid ration:- 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 School Education appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos' 1. 3 & 5. The cou nter affidavit filed on behalf of the c) resDon ent No.3, in articular oara Nos.4to8(r eferred to and extracted above) (d) The observations in the judgments referred to and extracted above and enlisted below: (i) (2o1s) 16 SCC 794, (ii) (2023) 8 SCC 24O, (iai) MANU/AP / 07 2r I 2022, (iv) 2O21 SCCOnline AP 1410, (v) The iudgment dated 22.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.2511 of 2()22, \ I t6 SN,.' (vi) The judgment dated 21.O4.2O25 passed by this Court in W.p.No.11744 ol 2025, (vii) The order dated 03.10.2023 passed by this Court in W.p.No.12655 of 2023, (e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos. 5 to 15 of the present order. (f) The fact as borne on record which establishes that the work executed by the petitioner is not disputed by the executing Authority i.e., the 6th respondent herein, who had forwarded proposals for release of funds/clearance of pending payments, as specifically averred at para No.6 of the counter affidavit fited on behalf of the respondent No.3(referred to and extracted above) (9) The specific pleas of the respondent Nos.1,3 & 5 with regard to the delay in payments to the petitioner. (h) The clear admission that the pending bilts would be cleared prompfly upon receipt of the necessary funds from the Government. T r d n P ion is e of di er er e n n r I admi ed a h h I t7 SN. J forwarded to the Government as stated at oara N0.6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resoondent No.3 ( refer toa nd extr ADDroDriate orders on the said Drooosa ve) and oass for rel a t m n Gov ernment vide Lr.N 0.364ls.Sl cw 1202 -26. dated 26- 6.202s. Lr.No.354 ss/cw/ 2025-26 t4.o7.2 o25. Lr.No. 634tSSt wt2(J25- 6, 2 5 Lr.N 64 CW 2 6 24- 8.202s Lr.No.3 4/sSICw t202s- 26. dated I 24 2 b lRepairs and Renovation to Govt. HS police Boys CpL Grounds, Hyderabad, M. Corporation (V), Amberpet (M), Hyderabad D stract" "Mana Ooru-Mana Badi" u nder m n h b rnm t r n B 2 IT -2 IT tN 47 d r 4 2- E 2 a a m c o h r o e a n o d HYD MOMB- 2 2 !n of h t l I n c id atio rta do A x l8 SN. J m ts r r d c an dul m unr eth d n h u ect to he H h o as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if Petition, shall stand closed. , r any, pending in this Writ h //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.V.O. NARSI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ To, I I I SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal secretary, ^The Hyderabad Education), Secretanat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. State of rerangana, EouYation Department (schoor 2. The Principal secretary, The State of rerangana, Finance and pranning 3. The commissioner/Director, school Education , state of rerangana, saifabad, 4. The District collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad District, collectorate 5' The District Educationar officer and Ex-officio, Diskict project officer, Samagra 6. The Executive Engineer, Telangana State Education and werfare lnfrastructure Development Corporation, (TSEWIDC), District Collectorate Complex, Lak;i_ir- Pool, Hyderabad - 500 004 Complex, Lakdi-Ka-pool, Hyderabad Shiksha, Hyderabad.

7. One CC to Sri P. U. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 8. Two ccs to GP for Schoor Education High court for the State of rerangana, at 9. Two ccs to the GP for Finance and pranning, High court for the state of Hyderabad [OUT] Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT]

10.One CC to Sri A. Yadava Reddy, Advocate[OpUc] 11.Two CD Copies o' \ _:'Y"l a *4 HIGH COURT DATED: 2211212025 ORDER WP.No.35582 of 2025 St:H f ) .. 01 J PA R 1ttl *'y' ..1..' a {./ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS oq\" U,b t