Writ of Mandamus — Non-payment of admitted bills — Public works contract — O & M Desilting Works — Arbitrary withholding of payment — Absence of LOC — State obligation to release admitted dues

Writ of Mandamus — Non-payment of admitted bills — Public works contract — O & M Desilting Works — Arbitrary withholding of payment — Absence of LOC — State obligation to release admitted dues

1. Writ of mandamus — Maintainability for payment of admitted contractual dues
   Where the respondents admit that amounts are payable to the contractor after finalisation of bills, non-payment thereof is arbitrary and amenable to writ jurisdiction. (Paras 2–3, 5)

2. Public works — Finalised bills — Non-payment unjustified
   Once the executing department admits finalisation of bills and entitlement of the contractor, withholding payment on administrative grounds such as non-availability of LOC is not justified. (Paras 2–3)

3. Admission by State — Binding effect
   Admission by the respondents regarding entitlement of the petitioner to payment constitutes a valid basis for issuing a mandamus directing release of the admitted amount. (Paras 3–5)

4. Discrepancy in claim and admitted amount — Relief confined to admitted sum
   Where there is a difference between the amount claimed by the petitioner and the amount admitted by the respondents, the Court can direct payment of the admitted amount, reserving liberty to claim higher entitlement if due. (Paras 4–5)

5. Time-bound direction for payment
   Direction to release the admitted amount within a stipulated time frame is warranted to prevent continued arbitrariness. (Para 5)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The petitioner, M/s. RK Infra Projects, entered into an agreement for O & M Desilting of Mandachedu Medium Drain in Nagidipalem village limits, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District (Para 2).

2. The original agreement No.68/2022-2023 dated 22-08-2022 was for a value of Rs.35,18,490/-, followed by Supplemental Agreement No.2/2023-24 dated 30-12-2023 for Rs.4,10,922/-, totalling Rs.39,22,000/- (Para 2).

3. The petitioner contended that despite execution of the works and finalisation of bills, the respondents failed to release the amounts due (Paras 2–3).

4. The learned Government Pleader for Irrigation admitted the claim and placed instructions stating that the bill was not uploaded due to non-availability of LOC (Para 3).

5. The Court noted a discrepancy between the petitioner’s claim (Rs.39,22,000/-) and the gross amount admitted by the respondents as Rs.35,20,455/- (Para 4).

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Arbitrariness in State action
   Non-payment of admitted dues after execution of works and finalisation of bills constitutes arbitrary State action, attracting judicial review under Article 226 (Paras 2–5).

2. Administrative constraints not a defence
   Lack of LOC or internal administrative hurdles cannot override the obligation of the State to honour admitted contractual liabilities (Para 3).

3. Scope of mandamus in contractual matters
   Though contractual disputes ordinarily lie outside writ jurisdiction, a writ of mandamus is maintainable where liability is admitted and payment is unjustifiably withheld (Paras 3–5).

4. Equitable balancing by Court
   Relief was confined to the admitted amount, while safeguarding the petitioner’s right to receive any higher amount if found entitled in accordance with law (Para 5).

---

FINAL RESULT

• The Writ Petition was allowed.

• The respondents were directed to release an amount of Rs.35,20,455/-, after making statutory deductions, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of the order.

• Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to receive any higher amount, if found entitled, as per law.

• No order as to costs.

• All pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed. (Para 5)