The State is obligated to act fairly and reasonably under Article 14 of the Constitution, even in contractual matters, and cannot arbitrarily withhold payment of undisputed and certified bills.

##PAGE1##

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.35379 OF 2025

DATE: 03.03.2026

Betw een :

M/s. BPR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Rep. by its Managing Director

… Petitioner

A n d

The State of Telangana,

Tourism Department,

Hyderabad & 3 others

… Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Ms. G. Sree Chandra, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for General Administration,

appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1,

Sri P. Venkateshw ar Rao, learned standing counsel

appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 4 and

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance

appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the

prayer as under:

2

SN,J

WP_35379_2025

“…to issue Writ of Mandamus, declare the inaction of the

respondents in not releasing certified amounts for works

executed under Agreement No.05/SE/SB/TSTDC/Agmt/2023-24,

dated 27.04.2023 as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles

14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently

direct the Respondents to release the certified 1^st Part bill of

Rs.2,79,09,175.00/- Gross, dated 19.12.2023, 2^nd Part bill of

Rs.1,58,49,968.00/- Gross, dated 27.03.2024, 3^rd & Final bill of

Rs.17,68,421/- Gross, dated 01.07.2025, Total

Rs.4,55,27,564.00 (Rupees Four Crore Fifty Five Lakhs, Twenty

Seven Thousand and Five Hundred and Sixty Eight only), with

24% interest per annum from the default/due date to till actual

date of payment and pass such other order…”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner

had entered into an agreement dated 27.04.2023 with the

Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation for the

construction of a budget hotel at Manyamkonda, Mahabubnagar

District, pursuant to a tender process in which the petitioner

emerged as the lowest bidder. Despite initial site encumbrances,

the petitioner completed the work to the satisfaction of the

authorities, and the bills were duly measured, certified, and

approved for payment. The certified amounts include the 1st part

bill dated 19.12.2023, the 2nd part bill dated 27.03.2024, and

the 3rd and final bill dated 01.07.2025, aggregating to

Rs.4,55,27,564/-. However, the respondents failed to release the

admitted dues without any legal justification. Aggrieved by the

3

SN,J

WP_35379_2025

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 Tw o 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 Article 226 of

the Constitution of India [ ‘ABL International

Ltd. and Another v. E