1. 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 Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessary payment within a period of four weeks from today. Given the long period of delay, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum may also be awarded.

               The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.”

               (B) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2023) 8 SCC 240 in Madras Aluminium Company Limited vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another vide judgment dated 06.07.2023, at paragraph Nos.39 and 40 observed as under:

               “39. A Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of U.P.4 observed that there exists “an obvious difference” between contracts concerning private parties to those which have State as a party. The primary difference being that the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions “acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest”. The said factor singularly is sufficient to bring into any transaction the minimal requirements of public law, to which the State is a party. The fact that a dispute falls into the contractual realm does not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the requirements of Article 14.

               40. Further the Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi case4 had observed that: (SCC p.237, para 24)

               “24. The State cannot be attributed the split personality of Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the contractual field so as to impress on it all the characteristics of the State at the threshold while making a contract requiring it to fulfil the obligation of Article 14 of the Constitution and thereafter permitting it to cast off its garb of State to adorn the new robe of a private body during the subsistence of the contract enabling it to act arbitrarily subject only to the contractual obligations and remedies flowing from it. It is really the nature of its personality as State which is significant and must characterize all its actions, in whatever field, and not the nature of function, contractual or otherwise, which is decisive of the nature of scrutiny permitted for examining the validity of its act. The requirement of Article 14 being the duty to act fairly, justly and reasonably, there is nothing which militates against the concept of requiring the State always to so act, even in contractual matters. There is a basic difference between the acts of the State which must invariably be in public interest and those of a private individual, engaged in similar activities, being primarily for personal gain, which may or may not promote public interest. Viewed in this matter, in which we find no conceptual difficulty or anachronism, we find no reason why the requirement of Article 14 should not extend even in the sphere of contractual matters for regulating the conduct of the State activity.”

               (C) The relevant portion of the judgment dated 30.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Katta Chinna Kotaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in MANU/AP/0721/2022, is extracted hereunder:

               “The Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions held that when there is non-payment of the undisputed bills, the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Surya Constructions Vs. State of Utter Pradesh and others, following the judgment in ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Cited supra. In view of the Apex Court judgment, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court could not be countenanced. The bills of the petitioner dated 13.3.2019 are admitted by the respondents and forwarded for payment after due measurements and obtaining quality control and the Vigilance report. Hence, the authorities are estopped from stating that the bills are submitted without executing the works. On the mere ground of pendency of Vigilance report, payment cannot be stopped. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to pay the bill amount of Rs.8,08,828/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

               (D) The relevant portion of the judgment dated 16.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mutyala Veeravenkata Satyanarayana vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2021 SCCOnline AP 1410, in particular paragraph Nos.8 and 9, is extracted hereunder:

               “8. The provisions of the Act make it clear that it is a welfare legislation meant to create employment/eradicate unemployment in rural areas and in the process to create durable assets for rural India. Thus, it is clear that a public element is involved in these works with State participation and funding. The “States” presence is therefore all pervasive in this scheme. The law on the interpretation of welfare legislation is also very clear. As held in number of cases including K.H.Nazar v. Mathew K Jacob case by the Supreme Court of India “Judges ought to be concerned with the colour, content and the context of such statutes”. Therefore, in view of the settled law and keeping in mind the purpose for which the legislation is enacted, this Court has to hold that there is a public element involved in this and that it is not a pure case of the State entering into a commercial contract.

               9. Apart from this when State or State instrumentalities act in an arbitrary manner or fail to act within time the Writ Court does have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Even the case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner supports this to an extent. Besides this Court notices that there is no method/mode for settlement of disputes provided for. Section 23 of the Act and Rule 14 of Schedule-I for example provide for constant monitoring of the works/books to be maintained etc. Despite this, there is no strict denial of the exact quantum of work executed.”

               (E) The relevant portion of the judgment dated 22.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.2511 of 2022, in particular paragraph Nos.23 and 24, is extracted hereunder:

               “23) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in J. Devendra Reddy v Kakatiya University and another reported in 2015 (3) ALD 97, held that withholding of the amount payable to the petitioner for the contract works, constitutes patent arbitrariness on the part of the respondents and directed the respondents to pay 2015 the amount due to the petitioner along with interest @ 12% per annum.

               24) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Srinivas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2021 (5) ALT 267, held that the petitioner is entitled for the interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of expiry of one month from the date of submission of bill to till the date of payment.”

               (F) The relevant portion of the judgment dated 21.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11744 of 2025 in particular paragraph No.5, is extracted hereunder:

               “5. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the respondent authorities to release the admitted bill amount of Rs.1,16,51,734.00/ due to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs.”

               (G) The relevant portion of the order of this Court dated 03.10.2023 passed under similar circumstances in W.P.No.12655 of 2023 in particular paragraph Nos.12 and 13, is extracted hereunder:

               “12. In the light of the pleadings and arguments referred to above, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to amounts payable under Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time that writ jurisdiction per se cannot be denied merely because the dispute arose out of a commercial contract as held in Surya Constructions’ case (Supra 1), ABL International Limited’s case (Supra 2) and Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited’s case (Supra 3). In Surya Constructions’ case (Supra 1), the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted relief to the petitioner therein taking note of the fact that bills payable to the petitioner were undisputed. In the instant case, the petitioner stands on a better footing as the bills of the petitioner are not only admitted but also certified. As observed above, in the present case there is no dispute as such between the parties. The only issue is with regard to release of payment under Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 by the respondents - State. No explanation is forthcoming from the respondents as to why the amounts covered by Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 cannot be released. According to the respondents, Bill Nos.34, 35 and 36 are pending for want of budgetary clearance. On the face of it, action of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and the same cannot be countenanced.

               13. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners have to approach civil Court even for payment of admitted bills runs contrary to the settled legal proposition. This Court would also look into the public interest involved. The project, as informed by the learned counsel on either side, is an ongoing project and the bills worth of hundreds of crores are kept pending for no reason and there is every possibility of non-release of payment impacting the ongoing project and the same would not be in public interest. Even for this reason, this Court holds that the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Further, as there is inordinate delay in release of payments covered by the subject bills by the respondents to the petitioner without any justification, in the opinion of this Court, the respondents are liable to pay penal interest. However, as against the claim of 18% per annum sought by the petitioner, this Court holds that the respondents are liable to pay penal interest at 9% per annum.”

               (H) The judgment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 and in particular para Nos.100 and 101 held as follows:

               “100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are duty-bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration.

               101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 02.03.2026 passed in W.P. No. 3346 of 2026 and hence, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of relief as extended to the petitioner in W.P. No. 3346 of 2026, dated 02.03.2026

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

7. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:

               a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

               b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance Department appearing on behalf of the respondents,

               (c) The observations in the judgments referred to and extracted above and again enlisted below:

               (i) (2019) 16 SCC 794,

               (ii) (2023) 8 SCC 240,

               (iii) MANU/AP/0721/2022,

               (iv) 2021 SCCOnline AP 1410,

               (v) The judgment dated 22.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.2511 of 2022,

               (vi) The judgment dated 21.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11744 of 2025,

               (vii) The order dated 03.10.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12655 of 2023,

               (viii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969

               (d) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at paragraph Nos.5 & 6 of this order,

The Writ Petition is disposed of in similar lines of the order of this Court dated 02.03.2026 passed in W.P.No.3346 of 2026 directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for release of the admitted, undisputed and finalized work done payments covered under Token No.2445649255, dated 05.01.2024, for an amount of Rs.2,33,88,289/- and Token No.2600444231, dated 31.05.2025, for an amount of Rs.1,14,90,407/-, pertaining to the works executed by the petitioner towards periodical renewals of the Pokalagudem–Padamatanarasapuram Road from Km.0/0 to Km.12/4 in Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana State, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court and other Courts in the various Judgments referred to and extracted above and pass appropriate orders pertaining to release of the said admitted, undisputed, certified work done payments to the petitioner herein, in respect of the works executed by the petitioner as per petitioner’s legal entitlement. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.