I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.7494 OF 2026 DATE: 11.03.2026 Between :

G.Bal Narasimha Reddy … Petitioner A n d The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, 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 I rrigation appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 5.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…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, Bejjanki (V and M), Siddipet District as Mini Tank Bund (hereinafter referred to as Subject Work) executed by the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, Unconstitutional and contrary to Conditions of Contract and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to release the admitted approved outstanding due amount of Rs.24,31,475/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Five Only) vide Token No.2601711578 dated 28-10-2025 due towards the Balance Work of Beautification of Ooracheruvu, Bejjanki (V & M), Siddipet District as Mini Tank Bund executed by the petitioner and pass…”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-

i) The petitioner, a Class-III contractor, was awarded the work of “Balance Work of Beautification of Ooracheruvu, Bejjanki, 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.02/EE/ID- 1/IC-1/2023-24 dated 06.12.2023, and thereafter, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the 4^th respondent vide Agreement AB No.12/EE/ID-1/IC-1/2023- 24 dated 10.01.2024 for a contract value of Rs.27,19,865.47 with a completion period of six months.

ii) The petitioner executed about 90% of the work and raised the 1^st and part running bill, which was duly measured, certified and approved for a gross amount of Rs.24,31,475/- on 27.10.2025, and the same was also approved by the 6^th respondent office on 28.10.2025 vide Token No.2601711578.

iii) However, despite such approval and completion of substantial work, the 1^st 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 writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The relevant portion of the judgment dated 08.03.2019 passed in M/ s. Surya Constructions Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 794 passed by the Two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2610 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.29505 of 2014), is extracted hereunder:

“…It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22.03.2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No.25126 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2014 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under A