132s21

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF IVARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 7494 OF 2026

Between:

G- Bal Narasimha Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, Aged Major, Occ. Contractor,

Rio H.No.1-67, Nluthannapet (V), Bejjanki (M), Siddipet District, Telangana.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department,

Secrelariat, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and

Command Area Development Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Building,

Saifabad, Hyderabad.

3. The Superintending Engineer, lrrrgation Circle No.1 , LIVID Colony,

Karimnagar, Telangana.

4. The Executive Engineer, lrrigation Divn No.1, lrrigation Circle-1, LMD Colony,

Karimnagar, Telangana

5. The Deputy Executive Engineer, lrrigation SD-2 of lrrigation Divn-1, lrrigation

Circle,1, LMD Colony, Karimnagar, Telangana

6. The District Treasury Officer, lntegrated District Office Complex, Siddipet

District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Courl may be pleased

to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of

mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the 1st

respondent in not releasing the admitted approved amounts for the work i.e.,

Balance Work of Beautification of Ooracheruvu, Bei;anki(V and M), Siddipet Diskict

as ltilini Tank Bund (hereinafter referred to as Subject Work) executed by the

t---,

Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, U nconstitutional and contrary to Cor litions of Contract

and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to release the : Jmitted approved

outstanding due amount of Rs.24,31,4751 (Rupees Twenty Fo: Lakh Thirty One

Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Five Only) vide Token Nc. 16017'1 1578 dated

28-10-2025 due towards the Balance Work of Beautificatior of Ooracheruvu,

Bejjanki (V and tt4), Siddipet District as lVlini Tank Bund executed h y the petitioner.

l.A. NO: 1OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumr,l lnces stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pl :ased to direct the

direct the 1st Respondent to fo(hwith release the admitted al) ,roved outstanding

due amount of Rs.24,31.4751 (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Thirty ('ne Thousand Four

Hundred and Seventy Five Only) vide Token No.2601 71 1 578 dirl :d 2B-1 0-2025 due

towards the Balance Work of Beautification of Ooracheruvu, E ejjanki (V and M),

Siddipet District as Mini Tank Bund executed by the petitioner.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALLAM RAMESH

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 6: SRI MD.NAVED KHAl'l

AGP FOR FINANCE E

'LANNING

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: SRI L.SANDEEP, AG I

FOR IRRIGATION

The Court made the following: ORDER

TN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

HON'BLE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRTTPETITION .7494F 202

DATE:Lt.o3.2026

Between :

G.Bal Narasimha ReddY

Petitione r

And

The State of Tela nga na,

Rep. by its PrinciPal SecretarY,

Finance Dcpartment,

Secretariat, Secretariat Building,

Saifabad, Hyderabad and others

ResPondents

ORDER

Heard Sri Allam Ramesh, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Md' Naved

Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of the

respondent Nos.1 and 6 and Sri L. Sandeep, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation

appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 5'

J.r-

2

5 N,l

V,

,

No.7494 ol 2026

2, The oetitioner aPproached the Cou rtseek inq

rer as under:

" issue a Writ, order oT directi r

particularly one ln the nature of wrtt of nr;

declaring the action of thc Rcsponder I

particularly the 1st respondent in not relel

admitted approved amounts for the work i.e,

Work of Beautificatron of Ooracheruvu, Bejjar I

f4), Siddipet Districl as Mini fank Bund (h:

referred to as Sublect Work) executed by the F

as illegal, arbitrary, UnconstituIional and <:c r

Conditions oF Coniract and consequently dire:

RespondenI to release the admitted i

outstanding due amount of Rs.24,37,475i-

Twenty Four Lakh Thtrty One Thousand Four

and Seventy Five Only) vide Token No.2t-:l)

dated 28 lO-2025 due towards the Balanc€

Beautification of Ooracheruvu, Bejjanki ( /

Siddipct District as [4ini Tank Bund execut( (

petition e r and pass. "

r more

ndamus

; more

;ing the

Balance

i (V and

-einafter

:titioner

Lrary to

the 1st

p proved

( Ru pees

Iundred

.711578

/,,tork of

& M),

by the

3. The cse of theetitioner in brief ,s per the

tn suDDort of theesent Writ Petition is a; under:-or

i) The petitioner, a Class-III contractor, I as awarded

the work of "Balance Work of Beautification of I oracheruvu,

,..*dG@:ri

averments made in the affidavit filed bv ttll: petitioner

r

3

S N,]

W P.No.7494 of 2025

Bej.lanki, Siddipet District as Mini Tank Bund" pursuant to

administrative approval vide G.O.Rt.No.792 dated

08.06.2018 and technical sanction vide SDR No.02lEElID-

llIC ll2023 )-4 dated 06.12.2023, and thereafter, the

petitioner had entered into an agreement wlth the 4th

respondent vide Agreement AB No.L2IEEIID-t/rc-1/2023-

24 dated lO.Ol.2024 for a contract value ot

Rs.27,19,865.47 with a completion period of six months.

ii) The petitioner executed about 90o/o of the work and

measured, certifred and approved for a gross amount of

Rs.24,31,475/- on 27.70.2025, and the same was also

approved by the 6tt' respondent office on 28.10 2025 vide

Token No.260 17 ll519.

iii) However, despite such approval and completion of

substantial work, the 1'r respondent has not released the

admitted outstanding amount, causing severe financial

hardship to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present

raised the 1't and part running bill, which was duly

writ petition

4

S N,I

/ '

No

?494 of 2026

4. PERUSED THERECORD:

A)The rel eva ntDortion ofthe iudor rent dated

.20r9Da ssedinM/s. Surva Cnstr uctionsVs.

08.o3

ttar Pradesh and others repo.t,I in (2019)

StateofU

794 oassedbv the ludqelt:nchof theTwo

15scc

in CivilAooeal No.261O of2(19 (Arisinq

ADex Court

hereunder:

"...It is clear, thcrefore, from the afor l

daled 22.03.20 14 that there is no dispute

amount that has to be paid to the appellant

this, when the appellant knocked at thc dor

High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civ

of 2OL4, the impugned judgment dated i)

dismissed the writ petition stating tha

questions of fact arise and that the amourI

aid order

rs to the

Des pite

rs of the

\o.25126

t.0 5. 2014

disputed

lue a rises

out of contractWe are afraid theHiqhlurtwas

whollv incorrectin asm uchas therewas no

disD utedouestion of fact.Onthe cor!ra,rv,-the

amountava bletotheaooellant whollv

undis

L

t

!

€

t

'l

1

outed.Eouallv. it is wellsettledtatwhe re

the state behavesarbitra rilv, even in threalm of

ontrcthe Hih Cou cou Iintrfeu nder

Article 226of theConstitutionof Inta t 'ABL

InternationalLtd. andAnotherv. ExrrtCredit

GuaranteeCorDoratron of India Ltd. aIOthers'

o4 Sc 553

r

This being the case and the work ll ving been

completed long back in 2009, we direc the Uttar

Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessa- payment

out of SLP (C) No.295O5 of 2014)' [; extracted

5

SN,J

W.P.No.1494 of 2026

within a period of four wceks l'rom today. Given the

long period of delay, interest at the rate of 6 per cent

per annum may also be awarded.

The appeal slands disposed of accordingly."

B) The Apex Court in the iudqment reported in

228 SCC 24O in Madras Almtntm man

Limited vs. Tamil Nadu Electricitv Board and Another

vide iudoment dated 06.07.2023, at Daraqraoh Nos.39

and 40 observed nder:

"39. A Bench of two learned ludges of this

Court in Shnlekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of Ll.P.a

observed that there exists "an obvious difference"

between contracts concerninq private parties to those

which have State as a party. The primary difference

being that the State while exercising its powers and

dischargrng its functions "acts indubitably, as is

expccted of it, for publrc good and in public interest".

The said Factor singularly is suffrcient to bring into any

transaction the minimal requirements of public law, to

Thefacttht a d ispute

falls into the contractual realm does not relieve

the State of its oblioation to comDlv with the

reouirements of Article 14.

40. Further thc Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthl

case 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 {mpress 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

which the State is a party.

6

SN,]

t\Jo. / 494 of ).026

to adorn the new robe of a privatc body d

subsistence of the contract enabling it to act

subject only to the contractual obligalions an,l

flowing from it. If /5 really the nature of its o

as Stafe which is srgnificant and must chara'

its actions, in whatever field, and not the

function, contractual or otherwise, which is a

the nature of scrutiny permitted for exant

The requirement of A

beino the dutv to actfairlv. iustlv and rea: onabl

there is nothino whichmtates aoait 'sf

the

concept of reouirinq the Statealwavs t., so ac

even in contractual matte

difference between thc acts ol the Statc \.,/ I r th m ust

invariably be in publrc interest and those oi; private

individual, engaged in similar activitics, beinq )rimartly

for personal gain, which may or may nol rromole

public interest. Viewed in this matter, in whrc I we find

no conceptual difficulty or anachronism, lqg,

Find no

shou ld

not extend even in the sDhere of con:ractual

matters for requlatinq the conduct 9t t! e State

activitv,"

c)The relevant portion of the iudcrnent dated

30.04.2922 passeL by the HrqhCourt of Andhra

Pradesh in Katta Chinna Kotaiah vs. T1e State of

Andhra Pradesh reported in MANU/APIO7. Ll2022. is

extracted hereunder:

"The Apex Court and this Court if catena

of decisions held that when there is non-[ avment

of the undisDuted bills, the same is vio! rtive of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:' India.

The counsel for the petitioner rightly placed r: ance on

ng the

bitrarily

:medies

sonality

erize all

lture of

,isive of

ing the

icle 74

)

I

=

validity of its act

rs. There is a basic

reason whv the reouirement of Article I4

!r!q!*w]-

7

S N,]

W P No.l494 al 2026

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

Guarantce Corporatron of Indra Ltd. Crted supra. !.0

vlew of the Aoex Court iudqment, the contention

of the lea rned Government Pleaderhat the writ

ion is not main fore this

cou ldot be countenanced. The bills of the

petitioner dated 13.3.2019 are admitted by the

respondents and forwarded l'or payment after due

measurements and obtaining quality control and the

Vigilance report. uencc, the authorities are estopped

from stating that the brlls are submltted without

executing the works. On l-he mere ground of pendency

of Vigilance report, payment cannot be stopped.

Acco rd in q lv,there shall bea direction to the

respondentsto Dav the bill amount of

Rs.8.O8,828/- to the oetitioner withia oeriod of

six weeks from the date of receiDt ofcoov of this

order. "

D)The relevant Dortion of the iudqment dated

16.03.2021assed bv the Hiqh Court of Andhra

Pradesh in Mutvala Veeravenkata Satvanaravana vs.

The State of AndhraPradesh reDortedin 2O21 SCC

Online AP 141o. in oarticular oaraqraph Nos.8 and 9,

is extracted hereunder:

"8. The provisions of the Act make it clear that

it is a welfare legislation meant to create

employment/eradicate unemployment in rural areas

and in the process to crcate durable assets for rural

India. Thus, it is clear that aDublic element is

involved in these works with StateDarticioation

t,

B

sN,l

,.,, )

No. /194 ot2026

and f u ndl'nq. The "States"presence is th€ rlfore all

)retation

held in

( Jacob

)ught Lo

context

tled law

rrch the

at there

rs not a

nmercial

pervasive in this scheme. The law on the inte r

of welfare leglslation is also very clear. As

number of cases including K.H.Nazar v. Mather'

case by the Supreme Court of India ".Judgcs

be concerned with the colour, content and lf(

of such statutes". Therefore, in view of the s:

and keeping in mind the purpose for !/

legislation is enacted, this Court has to holo

is a public element involved in this and that I

pure case of the State entering into a c )

co ntract.

9. Apart from this when State ! r State

instrumentalities ain an arbitrarv ma ,rner o

fail to act within time the Writ Court d c :s have

iurisdiction to entertain the matter. Evcrl

law cited by the learned counsel for the

1

supports this to an extent. Besides this Corr

that there is no method/mode for settl:

disputes provided for. Section 23 ofthe Ac[ att,

ot Schedule-l for example provide fo-

monltorrng of the works/books to be maintl

Despite this, there is no strict denial ol t

quantu m of work executed."

lne ca se

ctitioner

notices

rent of

Rue14

constant

ned etc.

re exact

E)The relevant portion of the iudqr tent dated

22.O3.2022 0assedbv the Hiqh Courl of Andhra

Pradesh in W.P.No.2511 of 2022in particular

Da raq ra DhNo 4. ises.23 and 2 xtracted her'I under:

Prades

*23)

The Hiqh Court of Andhra

h in J. Devendra Reddv v :akatia

Universtandanother reorted in

ALD 97held that withholdinq of thr

; o1s (3)

I amount

payable to the oetitioner for the :ontract

T]

o

SN,]

w. P. No /494 0i 2026

wo rks,constitutes patent arbitrarines5()n

tlr

earf.rffh ondn irectedth

esondn ath ount dut^ th6

oetitioneralonq with interest (ol2o/o oer

annum.

241The HiqhCourt ofAnd h ra

Pradesh in S. Srinivasvs. Stateof Andhra

Pradeshand others reortedin 2021 (5) ALT

267. held that the Detitioner is entitled for

inter L2o/o.alrthe da

exDrvof onemonth from the date of

submiion of bill totill the dateof

pavme nt. "

F)The relevant portionof the iudqmentdated

21.o4.2025passed bv this Court inW.P.No.11744 of

2025 in DarticularparaqraphNo.5, is exacted

hereunder:

"5. Havinreqard to thesubmissions of

both the learned counel, this Court deems it

riate t e of the Writition b

ctinth o ndent ies t

release theadmitted bill amount of

I1 34.OOd theetitionr

asosst referablwthi

periodof six (6) weeks from thedate of

receiot of a covoftheoer. No costs. "

G)TherelevantDortion of theorder of this Court

dated O3.1O.20230assed under similar circumstances

inW.P.No.12655 of 2O2in particular paraqraph

Nos.12 and13,tsextracted he

,

-

-

---'aiq 1*t6,r.:l!.:aa*a-:-

--

reu n der:

10

SN,]

\0.7a94 ot 2r-126

"12. In the light of the pleacitgs and

arguments referred to above, it is r I :ar that

there is no dispute with regard to irlounts

payablc under Bill Nos.34, 35 and :l(. tt has

been held bv the Hon'ble SuDrenl : Cou rt

from time to time that writ iurisdir: ioner

se cannot be deniedmerelv beciI rse the

d ispute arose out of a commercial

( ontract

as held in SurvaConstructions' casg (Su pra

1). ABL International Limited's cas€ (Suora

2) and Centurv SpinnintI and

ManufacturinqComDanv Limitecl'; case

(Su pra3). In Surva ConstructioI t' case

(Suora 1). the Hon'ble SuDrerr ( Court

qrantedrelief to the Detitionertherein

takino note of the fact that bills D.r' 'able to

the petitionerwere undisDuted. In the

instant case,the petitioner stanc s on a

better footinq asthe bills of the o( titioner

are not onlv admitted butalso cert f ied. As

observed above, in the present case tr

dispute as such between the parties.

issue is with regard to release of payrre

Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 by the resp;

State. No explanation is forthcoming

respondents as to why the amounts cl

Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 cannot be

According to the respondents, Bill N:

and 36 are pending for want of;

clearance. On the face of it, act.c r

respondents is arbitrary, unreason;

unjust and the same cannot be counte-

I .).

Add itiona I

The contention of the learne

Advocate General t! at the

petitionershave to aoDroach ci r I Cou

even for Davmetofadmitted tils runs

contrarv to the settled leqal pl!I osition.

This Court would also look into tl r public

rnterest involved. The project, as inf c

-med

by

rre rs no

he only

rI u nder

rdents

rom the

,ered by

e lea sed .

i.34,35

rdgeta ry

of the

;le and

: nced.

H)

11

S N,J

W. P. No. /49.1 ol 2026

the learned counsel on either side, is an

ongoing project and the bills worth of hundreds

of crores are kept pendrng for no reason and

there is every possibility oF non-release of

payment impacting the ongoing project and the

samc would not be in public inler esl . Even lor

this reason, this Court holds that the petitioner

has made out a case warranttng interference in

writ jurisdiction. Further' as there is

inordinate delav in releaseof oavments

the bills b

resDonents to the oetitioner without an

ustificin the o of th is cour

theresDondents areliable to oav

pena I

interest. However, as aoainst the claim of

r annum hbthe ner

this Court holds that the respondents are

liable to oay penalinterest at9o/o DQ.t

annu!n.1

The relevant portionof the orderdated

25 oassed bs Court in W.P.No.1O284ofvthi24.O4.20

2025,in DarticularDa rao ra DhNo.4. is exracted

here und er:

"4. In viewof the same andDarticularlv sinceit

has been nearlv a vear sincethe token has

ntven etitioneris Court dee

it fit andDroDer to directthe sth resDodent to

release the admitted and certified work done

paYnts, i.e., Rs.77 ,79,224 / -in resoect of the

Token No.2456A68964to the oetitioner within

riod of te10dasfrmhe date

receiptof a coDv ofthis order and if the

Davment is not made bv thesaid date, the said

nt shall ca i nterest rate of

12

5l'l , l

,4/ I []o.7.194 oi 2026

oer annum from the date of issuanc! of the

Tokentill the dateof Davment."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

5. Learned counsel appearing on beh rlf of the

petitioner submits that, the subject iss ue in the

present writ petition is squarely covered tl r the order

of this Court dated Oa.O7.2025 passed in VU P'No'29O6

of 2025, order dated 22-OL,2O26 lassed in

W.P.No.39884 of 2(J25, order dated iO'04'2025

passed in W.P.No.1O887 of 2025 and als< the order

dated 24.02.2O26 passed in W.P.No.3834 tl 2026'

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders i ppearing on

behalf of the respondents do not disput: the said

submission made by the learned counsel I )pearing on

beha lf of the petitioner.

7, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstar ces of the

case,

b) The submissions made by the learl ed counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned

13

sN,l

W.P.No 7494 of 2025

Assistant Government pleaders

appearing on behalf of

the respondents,

c) The observations in the judgments referred to

and extracted above and enlisted below:

(i) (2o1e) 16 SCC 794,

(ii) (2023) 8 SCC 24O,

(iii) MANU/AP / 07 27 / 2022,

(iv) 2021 SCC Ontine Ap 1410,

(v) The judgment dated 22.O3.2O22 passed by

the High Court of Andhra pradesh

in

W.P.No.251t ol 2022,

(vi) The judgment dated 21.04.2O25 passed by

this Court in W.P.No.11t44 of 2O25,

(vii) The order dated 03.1O.2O23 passed by this

Court in W.P.No.12655 of 2OZ3t

(viii) The order dated 24.04.2025 passed by this

Court in W.P.No.1O2B4 ot 2025,

d) The order of this Court dated 28.O4.2O25 passed in

W.P.Nos.1179L of 2025,

e) The order of this Court dated 25.O4.2O25 passed in

11541 ot 2025

14

SN,]

v! I No.7494 of 2026

f) The order of this Court dated 22.04.2O2I passed in

11640 of 2O25

S) The discussion and conclusion as rrrived at

paragraph Nos.s and 1O of this order,

h) The discussion and conclusion as lrrived at

paragraph Nos.4 to 6 of the present order,

The writ petition is disposed of directinq

petationer for release of the admatted an( aDproved

outstandinq due amount ofRs.24,3L,475 ( Ru pees

1

Twentv Four LakLlrirty One Thousand Fcr r Hundred

and Seventl, Erve Only) vide Token No.2.t ,O1711578

dated 28.1O.2025, due towards the Balarr e Work of

I

Beautification of Ooracheruvu, Beiianki

Siddipet District as Mini Tank Bund execrr:edbv the

petitioner herein, dulv takinq into considr rationthe

_(v & ML

observations of the Apex Court and this O lurt in the

va rlousIudments(referred to and extract ed above),o

and oass aoorooriaorders oertaininq t() release of

the said admitted undisputed work done r), rvments in

respect of the works executed by the petitl

i

I

'

'ne!:

as per

Respondent No.1 to consider the requl st of the

15

SN,]

W.P.No.)494 of 2026

Ditio ner'sleqalentitlemt

t

ent, inaccordanceto law

withinariod ofthre(3)weeks fromthedate of

cettofacofhisrd ndulcommunicr

te

theectlon onthe saireuetofth itiner to

the oetitione rheretn. Thereshall benoorderasto

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

6

To,

BSR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

'1 . The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Secretariat

Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Principal Secretary, lrrigation and Command Area Development

Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad, State of

Telangana.

3. The Superintending 1 Engineer, lrrigation Circle No.1, LIVD Colony,

Karimnagar, Telangana.

4. The Executive Engineer, lrrigation Divn No.1, lrrigation Circle-1, LI\ilD Colony,

Karimnagar, Telangana

5. The Deputy Executive Engineer, lrrigation SD-2 of lrrigation Divn-1, lrrigation

Circle,1, LMD Colony, Karimnagar, Telangana

6. The District Treasury

District.

Officer, lntegrated District Office Complex, Siddipet

7. One CC to SRI ALLATM RAMESH, Advocate IOPUCI

8. Two CCs to GP FORIFINANCE & PLANNING, High court for the State of

Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

9. Two CCs to GP FOR IRRIGATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at

Hyderabad [OUT]

10.Two CD Copies

TKS

w

costs.

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1110312026

ORDER

or1

()

'7

t\

rll

;fl

:7

j

.)

s

.{

irr

O

U-

'd-

s\

\

\ I

WP.No.7494 o12026

tt9

IH+

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS

-t

ffa

#--"

\q