AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel Sri A. Yadava Reddy appears for the appellant. Sri Mohammed Hussain, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning Department, appears for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. Shazia Parveen, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, appears for respondents No.5 to 9.
The present appeal is preferred against the judgment passed by the learned writ court in W.P.No.8721 of 2026 dated 07.04.2026.
In respect of a claim for release of contractual dues under an agreement with the State department, the learned writ court issued the following direction:
“11.In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the official respondents to undertake the exercise of releasing the payments to the petitioner in respect of the admitted bills, within a period of sixty (60) working days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event of failure to make payment within the said period, the outstanding amount shall carry 18% interest per annum, for the period of delay beyond the stipulated sixty (60) days. However, such delay shall not, in any event, extend beyond a further period of one (1) month thereafter.”
The petitioner, who is the appellant herein, is aggrieved, as the interest has not been allowed from the date on which the bills were due.
In a case of such contractual payment, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, grant of interest is not based upon any enforceable legal right, but rather on grounds of equity. The learned writ court has already granted 18% interest per annum from the date of expiry of stipulated period of sixty days. Therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a decision of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in State of Telangana v. M/s. Raghava-PLR (JV) (W.A.No.1081 of 2023, dated 12.12.2023), where the rate of interest awarded at 9% per annum was reduced to 6% per annum, however, payable from the date when the amount became due under the contract till the payment is made.
The facts of the present case are not exactly similar to the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in M/s. Raghava-PLR (JV) (supra). The said decision was rendered in a writ appeal preferred by the aggrieved State against the direction to release the payments to the writ petitioner on the higher rate of interest at 9% per annum.
The principle as regards grant of interest in writ jurisdiction in respect of contracts entered into between the parties is well settled. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned writ court granting interest at 18% per annum on the admissible amount beyond the period of 60 days needs no interference. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.