A state instrumentality cannot deny payment of admitted dues for executed works on the grounds of financial incapacity, and such money claims are maintainable under writ jurisdiction.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the CC.1st and Part Bill amount of Rs.54,05,390/- to the petitioner for the work executed by him in pursuance of Agreement entered into with the 3rd respondent vide Agreement No.42/SE/APSFICL/G untakal (SAAP)/ATP/ 2017-18 dated 29.01.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, violative' of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to release the bill amount of Rs.54,05,390/- along with interest to the petitioner, and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be to direct the respondents to release the CC.1st & Part Bill amount of Rs.54,05,390/- along with interest to the petitioner for the work executed by him in pursuance of the Agreement dated 29.01.2018 entered into the with the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the main writ petition, and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RAMESH BABU TALLURI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOUSING

2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

The Court made the following:

ORDER:-

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

“….to issue Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the CC.1st and Part Bill amount of Rs.54,05,390/- to the petitioner for the work executed by him in pursuance of Agreement entered into with the 3rd respondent vide Agreement No.42/SE/APSFICL/G untakal (SAAP)/ATP/ 2017-18 dated 29.01.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, violative' of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to release the bill amount of Rs.54,05,390/- along with interest to the petitioner, and to pass….”

The sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioner challenged the inaction of the respondents in not releasing the amounts even after completion of the entire works entrusted to him.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Mallikarjuna Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Housing Corporation appearing for respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, submits that in view of the non-release of the admitted amounts, the petitioner is facing multifarious problems, physically and fiscally. Hence, he submits that the release of the amounts is just and essential.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, places a copy of the written instructions dated 23.04.2026 issued by the concerned authority of the Corporation and submits that six months‟ time may be granted for paying the admitted amount of Rs.54,05,390/- to the petitioner.

Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner completed the works and has yet to receive payment, this Court finds the respondents‟ failure to pay is unjustified. However, taking into consideration of the ground realities to settle the admitted amounts, the respondents are granted rational time to settle the dues.

It is relevant to note the case of Kapila Hingorani Vs. State of Bihar ¹(2003) 6 SCC 1 wherein, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court at para 34 held as follows:

“…….The State may not be liable in relation to the day to day functioning of the Companies, but its liability would arise on its failure to perform the constitutional duties and functions by the public sector undertakings, as in relation thereto the State's constitutional obligations The State acts in a fiduciary capacity. The failure on the part of the State in a case o