The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Nagaboyina Satyavathi
2021 Latest Caselaw 4699 AP

                                       1

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: W.A.No.724 of 2021

                                PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
                                           ORDER

No      DATE

1     18.11.2021   AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH,J
                           and
                   B. KRISHNA MOHAN,J

(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)

Heard Mr. S. Sriram, the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants; Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Mr. I. Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, Grampanchayat, for the respondent no.2.

The appeal is directed against the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11511 of 2021 and its batch cases.

The writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions:

i) The Memo No.1263069/RD.II/A1/2020, dated 05.11.2020 and the Memo No. 1388361/ RD.II/A1/2020, dated 12.05.2021 issued by the Respondent No.1 are set aside to the extent of deduction of 21.02% for DCC works and 6.333% for MCC works while making payments to the petitioners.

ii) The respondents are directed to clear the bills submitted by the petitioners and to

release payments forthwith, in case no payment is made till date.

iii) In case, any part payment is made as on date, the remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioners forthwith.

iv) The respondents shall pay interest @12% per annum within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

v) The interest shall be computed from the date of expiry of one month from the date of submission of the bill by the petitioners to till the date of final payment.

Learned Advocate General submitted that before the learned Single Judge, the prayer was for payment of the dues of the writ petitioners purportedly for the work done by them and material supplied for the execution of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) executed under the Special Development Fund (SDF), Rural Development Fund (RDF) and C.M. Tipping Fund. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge has gone on the premise that there has been unjust enrichment by the authorities and they were withholding the amount which had been forwarded by the Central Government and by not making payment to the petitioner. Learned Advocate General submitted that such principle would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, since even if it

is taken for the sake of argument, without admitting the same, that the State Government was withholding any amount due to the writ petitioner, ultimately, the money remained in the public exchequer of which the State Government is only a custodian. Thus, there was no occasion for granting of 12% interest by invoking the principle of unjust enrichment. Learned counsel, from the compilation, drew the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd v. Union of India {(2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 614}, the relevant being at paragraph no.28, where it has been noted that though the doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutary doctrine, but is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person, and is inapplicable to the State for the State represents the people of the country and no one can speak of the people being unjustly enriched. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench dated 02.11.2021 in W.P (PIL) No.166 of 2019 (Krishna District Grama Panchayathi Sarpanchla Sangam v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others), along with other cases, in which, the Sarpanch of various Grampanchayats had moved the Court seeking payment of similar works done by them and material supplied, in which the Hon'ble Court, while disposing of the writ petitions had directed the concerned Department of the Government to disburse the entire balance amount to the suppliers/beneficiaries within a period of four

weeks without awarding any interest. Reliance was also placed on the order of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.200 of 2021 (The State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. M/s.Net N Net Company), which was admitted while staying the payment of interest till disposal of the appeal.

Learned Advocate General further contended that the learned Single Judge went beyond the scope of the writ petition by setting side the Memo No.1263069/RD.II/A1/2020, dated 05.11.2020 and the Memo No. 1388361/ RD.II/A1/2020, dated 12.05.2021, which was not even the relief claimed for and with regard to which the appellants had no occasion to seriously contest or defend the same. Moreover, it was contended that the same was by way of safeguard provided for detection and prevention of any wrong doing in any work and also as a check with regard to misuse of public fund.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1, who has suo moto appeared, submitted that the direction for payment has been made only upon the Court having summoned the Principal Secretaries, Department of Finance and Panchayat Raj, and thus, the conduct of the appellants had rightly prompted the Court to order for payment of interest. With regard to the Circular, it was contended that the said circular has been set aside only to the extent of determination of 21.02% for DCC works and 6.333% for MCC Works, while making payments

to the petitioner. It was contended that such condition was arbitrary and that the order of the Court cannot be faulted with.

Learned Advocate General responding to the contention of learned counsel for the respondent no.1, submitted that the purpose of deduction of 21.02% for DCC works and 6.333% for MCC works is practical and reasonable since in the absence of the same, no effective control would be there with the authorities, if at all, it is found, there has been irregularities in completion of the works.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, at present, the Court would not go into the rival contentions as the matter would require detailed hearing.

Accordingly, the appeal is admitted. As the respondent no.1 has entered appearance, no notice is required to be issued. However, copy of the pleadings be handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

The direction of the learned Single Judge regarding payment of interest to the respondent no.1 as also setting aside the provision in Memo No.1263069/RD.II/A1/2020, dated 05.11.2020 and the Memo No. 1388361/ RD.II/A1/2020, dated 12.05.2021 relating to deduction of 21.02% for DCC works and 6.333% for MCC works, while making payment, shall remained stayed.

On a query of the Court, learned Advocate

General submitted that the direction of the learned Single Judge as far as payment of the principal amount of the bills raised by the original writ petitioner, in terms of the order of the Division Bench in Krishna District Grama Panchayathi Sarpanchla Sangam (supra), shall be made within four weeks, if already not done.

The matter be listed for hearing in due course.

It is clarified that the appellants shall comply with the rest of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal.

_________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH,J)

_________________________ (B. KRISHNA MOHAN,J) Pab