Vision Distribution Private Limited vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

Heard Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. D. Siva Sankar Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. T. Venkat Raju, learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Vide order under appeal dated 12.11.2025, the learned writ Court has disposed of W.P. No.27469 of 2025 taking note of the stand in the written instructions furnished by the Director of School Education & State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, Telangana, Hyderabad, by directing the respondents to consider the request of the appellant for release of the pending payments as admitted therein in accordance with law, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The present appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by non-grant of interest @18% of the principal amount from the due date till its realization.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the claim of the appellant was clearly indicated in paragraph 8 of the memorandum of writ appeal. According to the appellant, the amount became due from 29.08.2024. There is a delay of 695 days. Therefore, interest over the principal amount @18% would accrue up to Rs.11,55,48,805/-, which the learned writ Court erroneously did not allow despite referring to the decisions of Apex Court and other High Courts. Therefore, the appellant has approached this Court in the present appeal. It is submitted that as per the direction of the learned writ Court, the respondents are under obligation to make the payments by 24.08.2026. This Court may therefore direct them to make the due payments within the time stipulated by the learned writ Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that WP No.27469 of 2025 was of course disposed of on the basis of the written instructions furnished by the learned counsel for the State on behalf of the respondent concerned but the claim of interest was never admitted.

The written instructions indicated that the pending payments could be paid and settled within a specific timeframe for which the State Government has been requested to release the required budget. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the terms and conditions of the contract specifically the ‘Payment Schedule’ at clause 11 which reads as under:

A mere perusal of the payment schedule shows that the payment is in staggered manner, 90% of the contract value is to be paid on delivery and successful installation of equipment at site and after verification of such items by authorized agency School Education Department, Telangana, remaining 10% is to be paid after submission of performance certificate issued by the department AT conducted by TSTS. In case the site is not ready, 75% of the contract value for the said site/location is to be paid. The payment authority is under an obligation to verify the bidder's statement and certify the amount to be paid to the bidder after certifying the software and hardware equipments. The value of work shall be decided by the department. The department may exclude any item certified in a previous certificate or reduce the proportion of any item previously certified in any certificate in the light of the later information. Payments shall be admissible after deducting the further security deposit, Tax Deduction at Source, sales tax, royalty and other taxes applicable at the prevailing rates. The aforesaid payment schedule clearly shows that the entire amount on successful installation of the equipment at site is not payable in one go. The pleadings on record do not clarify on the part of the appellant the dates of delivery and successful installation of the equipment at site and the claims made thereupon and also the specific period for which the sum due remained unpaid. On the part of the respondents, the instructions only refer to the balance claim of Rs.33,71,32,807/- payable to the appellant. The claim of interest is not barred as per the contractual terms but the date on which any sum became due and has not been paid in terms of the payment schedule are questions of fact which cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction and at this appellate stage. The claim of interest over the sums unpaid beyond the permissible date are issues which could be raised in a proceeding where questions of fact can be determined on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties. The agreement provides for arbitration clause 5.15. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surya Constructions v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others^{11.(2019) 16 SCC 794}. The operative part of the same is extracted hereunder:

In the instant case, as observed hereinabove, there is no pleading or determination on facts as to the dates from which the sum became due and remain unpaid over which the claim of interest could be granted. As such, we are of the view that though the learned writ Court has directed payment of amounts admitted as per the written instructions furnished by the Director of School Education & State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, Telangana, Hyderabad, since there are no averments or findings on the issue of interest accruable from the dates on which the sums due to the appellant became payable. it would not be proper for this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction to render any finding for granting interest as prayed for. However, it does not preclude the appellant from raising the claim of interest in an appropriate proceeding such as arbitration as per clause 5.15 of the agreement entered between the parties.

Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order under appeal. Accordingly, the instant Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.