ORDER

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Panuganti, Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of the respondents.

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

“…to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the Respondents herein, in not releasing the finalised and admitted bills generated in the Comprehensive Financial Management System (CFMS) and issued vide 1). Token No. 2445649255, amounting to Rs. 2,33,88,289/-, dated 05.01.2024; and 2). Token No. 2600444231, amounting to Rs. 1,14,90,407/- dated 31.05.2025; for the work of periodical renewals to the Pokalagudem-Padamatanarasapuram road from Km. 0/0 to Km. 12/4 in Bhadradri Kothagudem District, despite repeated requests, is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents to release the following finalised and admitted bills issued under the Comprehensive Financial Management System (CFMS) vide 1)Token No. 2445649255, dated 05.01.2024, amounting to Rs. 2,33,88,289/-; and 2).Token No. 2600444231, dated 31.05.2025, amounting to Rs. 1,14,90,407/, pertaining to the works executed under the contract for periodical renewals of the Pokalagudem-Padamatanarasapuram road from Km. 0/0 to Km. 12/4 in Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana State; and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

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 is a contractor company engaged in execution of civil infrastructure works, particularly construction and maintenance of roads and bridges.

ii) Pursuant to a tender process, the petitioner was awarded the contract work relating to periodical renewals of the Pokalagudem–Padamatanarasapuram Road from Km.0/0 to Km.12/4 in Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana State, and the petitioner completed the said work to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities.

ii) After completion of the work, the respondents admitted the bills and generated them in CFMS by issuing Token Nos. 2445649255 dated 05.01.2024 for an amount of Rs.2,33,88,289/- and 2600444231 dated 31.05.2025 for an amount of Rs.1,14,90,407/-. However, the amounts have not been released by the respondents as on date. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner 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 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India [ ‘ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others’ (2004 (3) SCC 553)].

This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2009, we direct the Uttar