Telangana High Court
M/S V K A Constructions vs State Of Telangana on 22 January, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT APPEAL.No.342 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr. K.R.Kaushal Karan, party-in-person representing
the appellant-M/s V.K.A. Constructions and Mr. P.Radhive Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
2. The present is a Writ Appeal preferred by the appellant
assailing the order dated 14.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.30810 of
2023, wherein, the learned Single Bench has dismissed the writ
petition filed by the appellant/petitioner seeking for releasing of
the payment for the work executed by the petitioner with the
respondents.
3. The claim of the petitioner was based on the certification
done by the respondents in the measurement book.
4. The learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Director of Agriculture
PSK,J & RRN,J
v. M.V.Ramachandran1 and in the case of Godavarikani Sugar
Mills v. The State of Maharashtra 2, has dismissed W.P.No.30810
of 2023 permitting the petitioner to approach the respondent
authorities by submitting explanation to the letter dated 07.02.2022
and the respondent authorities were directed to consider the same
and take further action. The learned Single Judge was also of the
view that in terms of the agreement entered into between the
parties, any dispute exceeding Rs.50,000/- has to be adjudicated
upon by approaching the Civil Court concerned. Aggrieved by the
decision of the learned Single Judge, the instant writ appeal has
been filed.
5. The contention of the party-in-person is that there is a clear
certification for the work done by the officers of the respondent
department itself. In addition, the work was also inspected by a
team of committee from the department of civil engineering under
the Osmania University, who had inspected the site and submitted a
MANU/SC/0824/2023: Civil Appeal No.176 of 2023 dated 17.03.2023
(2011) 2 SCC 439
PSK,J & RRN,J
report on 31.03.2021 proving the execution of the work being
satisfied. In the light of the same, the party-in-person relying upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
M/s. Gas Authority of India Ltd v. M/s Indian Petrochemicals
Corp. Ltd. & Ors., in Civil Appeal Nos.3504-3505 of 2010
decided on 08.02.2023 contended that there does not seem to be
any dispute on the work having been executed by the petitioner and
the same having been not satisfied. Thus, the claim of the
petitioner, particularly in the teeth of the certification done by the
officers of the Municipal Department becomes admitted dues and
since it is admitted dues, the same could not be granted invoking
the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
particularly since there is no dispute of the petitioner having not
executed the said work and not being entitled for the payment for
the work so executed.
6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on
perusal of the record, the admitted factual matrix of awarding of
the work to the petitioner and the petitioner having executed the
PSK,J & RRN,J
said work, what is in dispute is to the aspect as to whether the
petitioner has adhered himself to the conditions so mentioned in the
agreement entered into between the parties for the execution of
the said work. At the first instance, the appellant was not in a
position to show the original invoices of the purchase of bitumen,
as the requirement of the original bill is mandatory in terms of the
Clause 102 b (i) (ii).
7. Though the party-in-person/appellant submits that the bill
invoices had in fact been obtained and submitted to the department,
there does not seem to be any enjoyment of the original having
been submitted. The appellant submits that he has a second copy of
the same which he has already submitted to the Department.
Another aspect which needs to be appreciated at this juncture is
that from the pleadings and the documents available on record,
there appears to be couple of correspondences made by the
respondent authorities to the petitioner in respect of certain defects
which were found in the course of the inspection, pertaining to the
work executed by the petitioner. The correspondences made in this
PSK,J & RRN,J
regard are that of 26.03.2021, 06.07.2021, 12.01.2022 and lastly
07.02.2022.
8. A plain reading of the contents of these four
correspondences also forces this Bench to draw an inference that
the claim raised by the petitioner cannot be said to be admitted
dues or the payment to have been withheld without any reasons.
The documents along with the petition and the agreement entered
into between the parties would clearly indicate that certain due
formalities have to be completed before the respondent authorities
could process the bill for releasing of payment. It appears that it is
these formalities whatever be the compelling circumstances then
prevailing that seems to have left unfulfilled by the petitioner. In
the absence of completion of the formalities as is required, we are
of the considered opinion that ordering for releasing of the payment
for the work executed by invoking the writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be sustainable.
9. Learned Single Bench itself has reserved the right of the
appellant to approach the respondent authorities by ventilating his
PSK,J & RRN,J
grievances by responding to the last notice dated 07.02.2022 and
there was also a further direction to the respondent authorities to
consider such response that the petitioner makes, so far as his claim
is concerned.
10. Given the said view taken by the learned Single Bench, more
particularly, considering the fact that the claim of the appellant
arises out of pure contractual obligation, we are of the considered
opinion that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for redressal of civil liability may not be sustainable.
Thus, reserving the liberty granted to the appellant by the learned
Single Bench, the present Writ Appeal accordingly stands disposed
of.
11. At this juncture, we would only make a further observation
that the liberty granted to the appellant to approach the respondent
authorities pursuant to the correspondence dated 07.02.2022 would
not preclude him from availing other remedies as is available to
him in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. The
non-entertainment of the writ petition and the present writ appeal
PSK,J & RRN,J
should not come in the way of the respondent authorities in
entertaining the claim of the petitioner. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
___________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 22.01.2025
Pvt
