P.Srinivasa Raju vs The Government Of Andra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4000 AP

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                   WRIT PETITION No.28363 OF 2021

ORDER:-

1.     The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to declare the impugned

proceedings dated 27.07.2021, 28.10.2021, 01.11.2021 and 05.11.2021,

including notice dated 03.11.2021 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently

to set-aside the same.


2.     The petitioner's case is that, through various agreements, the

petitioner has undertaken different civil works and successfully completed

those works. The net amount payable to the petitioner was concluded at

Rs.58,11,613/-. After three years of completion of work, the respondents

issued impugned proceedings and notice informing the petitioner that the

District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru has issued proceedings regarding

formation of verification teams with Engineers of Engineering Departments

other than Water Resources Department to verify the irregularities noticed

on works taken up under Neeru-Chettu Programme and as per the

instructions issued by the Government for verification of all the works for

which payments are pending by constituting verification teams at District

Level. Though the works were completed long back and the default liability

period of two years was also completed, still, the respondent authorities

have not reMITTED the amount on the premise that the bills are under

scrutiny by the inspection teams. Hence, the writ petition is preferred to NV,J WP No.28363 of 2021

set-aside the impugned proceedings and notice, constituting verification

teams to verify the irregularities noticed under the Neeru Chettu Scheme.

3. Heard. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents.

4. As can be seen, the petitioner's case is a pitiable one. The petitioner

has successfully completed the agreed works to the satisfaction of the

authorities. However, the bill amount of Rs.58,11,613/- was withheld and

not returned, most importantly, without any reason.

5. It appears that, the payments could not be made to the petitioner due

to pending vigilance enquiry and non-receipt of MGNREGS funds which are

due from the Government of India. This Court feels that such contentions

are false, and far from truth and the said contentions are made to mislead

the Court and to drag on the payment to the petitioner for which they are

legitimately entitled, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court as extracted hereunder.

6. In Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v Mohan Law1, the Apex

Court has criticized the attitude of Government officials in deliberately

delaying taking crucial decisions affecting citizens and then contesting the

same on technical pleas without justification. It declared.

"5. Statutory authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and high-handed manner. They can not behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor

(2010) 1 SCC 512 NV,J WP No.28363 of 2021

can they resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers are brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be corrected.

6. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that Governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice.

7. In Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International2, the Apex Court

held:

"2. ... It is high time that Governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a Government o3r a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a Government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable."

8. In a three-Judge Bench judgment of Bhag Singh v. UT of

Chandigarh3, the Apex Court held:

"3. ... The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen."

9. The Apex Court, has time and again held, that the State should act

as a model litigant. In Urban Improvement Trust's case (cited above), the

Apex Court observed as under:

[(1979) 4 SCC 176]

[(1985) 3 SCC 737] NV,J WP No.28363 of 2021

"6. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that Governments and statutory authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf".

10. In Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India4, the Apex Court extracted

with approval the following statement [from an earlier decision of the Kerala

High Court (P.P. Abubacker case [Ed.: P.P. Abubacker v. Union of India, AIR

1972 Ker 103 : ILR (1971) 2 Ker 490 : 1971 Ker LJ 723], AIR pp. 107-08,

para 5)]: (SCC p. 562, para 25):

"5. ... The State, under our Constitution, undertakes economic activities in a vast and widening public sector and inevitably gets involved in disputes with private individuals. But it must be remembered that the State is no ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook; for the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial de-fence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. The State is a virtuous litigant and looks with unconcern on immoral forensic successes so that if on the merits the case is weak, Government shows a willingness to settle the dispute regardless of prestige and other lesser motivations which move private parties to fight in court. The layout on litigation costs and executive time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic showdowns where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of Government some initiative and authority in this behalf. I am not indulging in any judicial homily but only echoing the dynamic national policy on State litigation evolved at a Conference of Law Ministers of India way back in 1957."

11. As per the contention of the respondents, payments are not made

due to pendency of vigilance enquiry against the works executed by the

[(1974) 3 SCC 554 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 89] NV,J WP No.28363 of 2021

petitioner for the works under MGNREGS. But, without making payments,

even after filing of the writ petitions before the Court, the respondents

contended that payments could not be made due to pendency of the

enquiry against the petitioners.

12. Before making payments, necessary steps shall be taken for proper

execution of MGNREGS works and in the case of any enquiry against any

alleged irregularities is going on, action like withholding of payments, etc.,

will be contemplated. But the same was not paid. It is imperative for public

authorities to recognize their responsibility and promptly fulfil contractual

obligations by paying the agreed-upon amounts to contractors. Failing to do

so not only jeopardizes future contractor engagement but also undermines

the quality of work delivered. In the present case, the withholding of the bill

amount lacks justification. Therefore, it is only fair for the petitioner to

receive the payment owed to them, along with interest.

13. Hence, the respondents are responsible for making payments for

works undertaken by the petitioner, be it the Finance Department or

Panchayat Raj Department or any other department. In view of the above

discussion, it is held that the State Government unlawfully withheld the

amounts payable to the petitioner without any reason and authority.

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, not releasing the amount for

which the petitioner is legitimately entitled is nothing but depriving the

rights of the petitioner. Due to illegal action of non-payment of the amounts NV,J WP No.28363 of 2021

promptly by clearing the bills submitted by the petitioner after execution of

works, the petitioner could not look after the welfare of their family

properly, they could not make payments to employees/workers and they

could not make payments to the material procured and they have to pay

interests for the debts incurred by them for execution of works. Due to this

situation, petitioner's respect and dignity in the society will be deteriorated.

As such, the petitioner's right to life with respect and dignity will be

defeated which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As

such, this Court holds that withholding the amount, for which the

petitioner is legally entitled, is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and violative of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

15. In view of my foregoing discussion, writ petition is allowed, declaring

the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings and

notice vide proceedings dated 27.07.2021, 28.10.2021, 01.11.2021 and

05.11.2021, including notice dated 03.11.2021 is illegal, arbitrary and also

contrary to the terms of contract apart from violation of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India and consequently, they are set-aside.

16. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

Date: 04.08.2023

SP