Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating complex, disputed contractual claims requiring the examination of evidence, as these matters are best left to a civil court for trial.

O R D E R:

Petitioner is engaged in the business of PEB Materials, including supply of steel structures, purlins, bolts, accessories and erecting materials. It is stated, Petitioner obtained a registration certificate for payment of GST from the 1st Respondent vide Registration No. 36AHKER6440E127 dated 11.01.2024 under the name and style of M/s SSR Engineers & Contractors.

1.1. The 6th Respondent approached Petitioner stating that they had secured a tender from the 2nd Respondent for execution of work relating to Pit Line Sheds at Cherlapally Railway Station, Secunderabad, and offered a sub-contract to Petitioner. After due negotiations, the 6th Respondent issued a Purchase Order (sub-contract) dated 25.11.2023 for execution of the said work, which was agreed to and accepted by Petitioner along with the terms and conditions stipulated therein.

1.2. Pursuant to the said sub-contract, Petitioner supplied materials in accordance with the agreed terms through various invoices raised during the period from 07.12.2023 to 15.10.2024; they paid GST to the Government through the 6th Respondent from out of its bills; the 6th Respondent did not make payments properly from time to time and that the last payment made by them was only Rs.17,75,603/- on 22.08.2024. As per the ledger account maintained by Petitioner, the last supply of material was made on 15.10.2024 under Invoice No.131 for Rs.13,08,337/-. It is contended that after accounting for all transactions, a total outstanding amount of Rs.79,15,179/- remained due as on 15.10.2024. It is further contended that despite repeated requests made by Petitioner to the 6th Respondent for clearance of the outstanding dues, the same were not paid. Consequently, a legal notice dated 24.01.2025 was got issued demanding payment of the outstanding amount of Rs. 79,15,179/- with accrued interest, and copies of the said notice were also marked to Respondents No.2 to 5. However, no positive response was received from Respondents No.2 to 6.

1.3. Petitioner came to know through reliable sources that the 6th Respondent had made an Application to Respondents 2 to 5 seeking release of retention amounts lying with their department on the ground that the work of Pit Line Shed had been successfully completed and the defects liability period had also been completed. The said retention amount is about to be disbursed in favour of the 6th Respondent at any moment. In those circumstances, Petitioner made a personal representation dated 31.01.2026 through Speed Post to Respondents No.2 to 5, marking a copy to the 6th Respondent, requesting them not to disburse the retention amount to the 6th Respondent and instead remit Rs.79,15,179/- with accrued interest to Petitioner's bank account bearing No. 219211010000046, Union Bank of India, Mahendra Hills Branch, Secunderabad.

1.4. It is further contended that Respondents' department is enjoying the benefit of the work executed by Petitioner as a sub-contractor under the 6th Respondent. whereas Petitioner is not in a position to run its organization due to non-payment of dues, and is unable to meet its financial obligations including payment of wages and amounts due to financiers. Respondents 2 to 5 may at any moment disburse the retention amount to the 6th Respondent, who, according to Petitioner, is not in a position to pay the due amount to Petitioner. It is further contended that Respondents 2 to 5, being Government authorities and beneficiaries of the work executed by Petitioner, have an obligation to ensure payment of the amounts due to Petitioner.

1.5. Petitioner relies upon the order date