Disposed

B. Linga Swamy v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC6 Oct 2025WP/19492/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A TGSRTC contractor sought payment of pending bills and withheld EMD for skilled/unskilled labour supplied at Gadwal Depot. The court directed the petitioner to submit bills with statutory compliance documents within four weeks and respondents to verify, process and release eligible amounts, permitting civil court remedies if payment is denied.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued: petitioner to file bills with documents in four weeks; respondents to verify and pay eligible amounts including EMD within four weeks; liberty to pursue civil remedies.

B. Linga Swamy Vs The Telangana State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^3300l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT FETITION NO: 194920F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Linga Swamy, TGSRTC Contractor, S/o. Laxmanna, aged.37^years, Fyo. H.No.7-95/1, Pebbair (P and M), Wanaparthy Dist, Mahaboob Nagar.

¶9

...PETtT!ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by the Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶12

2 The Regional Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Mahabub Nagar Region, Mahabub Nagar, Telangana State.

¶13

3 The Accounts Officer, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, 0/o the Regional Manager, Mahabub Nagar, Telangana State.

¶14

The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Gadwal Depot, Mahabub Nagar.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not^paying the due bills for the works done by the Petitioner at the 4th respondent Depot from^{Jan,2019 to} July, 2019 and .the EMD amount of Rb.36,364/- totaling an amount of^Rs.2.50 Lakhs in^pursuance of the Work orders vide Proc. Dt.17-06-2O17^{and Dt.} 03-10-2019, is unjust and arbitrary, and as such liable to be set^{aside witha} consequential direction to^pay the due bills for the works done by the Petitioner^at the 4th respondent Depot from Jan, 2019 to July, 2019 and^{the EMD amountof} Rs.36,364/- totaling an amount of Rs.2.50 Lakhs in^pursuance of the Work^orders

¶17

vide Proc., Dt.'|7-06-2017 and Dt,O3-10-2}19,along^{with interestforthwith and} pass

¶18

lA NO: 1 oF.20:15

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to} DIRECT the respondents to^{pay the due bills for the works doneby the Petitioner} at the 4th respondent^{Depotfrom Jan,2019 to July, 2019 and the EMDamount of} Rs.36,364/- totaling an amount of^{Rs.2.50 Lakhs in pursuance of the Work orders} vide Proc. Dt. 1 7- 06-2017 and^{Dt.03-10-2019, along with interest forthwith,} Pending disposal of the W.^P,

¶20

Gounsel for the Petitioner^: SRI^{S. M. SUBHAN}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TGSRTC)} The Court madel the following: ORDER

/''!\

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A I

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

sri s.M. subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Telangana state Road rransport corporation (TGSRTC) contractor. He submits that the petitioner was the highest bidder in the year 2oLT tender for provicing one skilled and two unskilled workers for HSD oil top_ up and preparation of accountar challans at Gadwal Depot. He submits that the petitioner has successfully completed the contract work and was paid bills up to December,2oLg by the respondents. He submits that the petitioner, despite having completed the contract work between Januar5r, 2oLg and July 2oL9, the respondents raitea to release payment of the pending bills and withheld the EMD amount of i?s.36,364/-l aggregating to a total of Rs.2.5o lakhs, in pursuance of the work orders dated L7.o6.2oLZ and 03.10.2019, without any justification. made several representations to the authorities, the latest being on 23.11-2023, but no action was taken. He further submits that

¶28

¶29

¶30

this inaction of the respondents has caused tinanciar hardship and loss to the petitioner.

¶31

2' on the other hand, Ms. Mahitha, reai-ned counser representing sri R. Anurag, learned Standing counsel for TGSRTC, for the respondents have filed a detajled counter affidavit raising a preliminary objection regarding the maintaineLbility of the writ petition, contending that the dispute arises pu:'ely out of a contractuar obrigation, whicrr shourrd be adjudicated by a competent civii court and not under Article 226 of the constitution. It is statec that the petitioner railed to submit the requisite bills arong with statutory documents, namely, prfd PF and ESI chailans, as per clauses 23 and 24 of the contract agreement. It is stated that on 'erification, pF challans f<lr Januar5r, 2org and February, 2org were found, but no rec'rds for March, 2or9 to Jury,. 2org were gvailable or reflected on the official website. It is further stated that the respondents are always ready to process and release the bills once the petitioner submits ail. requisite documents showing statutory compliance.

¶32

3' This {)ourt, having heard both sides and perusing the mateqfal on. the record, is of the considered. view that the .-..

¶33

¶34

\ \

¶35

dispute^{primarily pertains to non-paymentof bills owing to} non-submissionofrequisitedocumentsinaccord.ancewiththe contractualterms.Therespondentshavenotdeniedthe petitioner's^{executionof work but have pointed to lapses in} statutorycompliance.Whileissuesarisingpurelyfrom contractualbreachesaregenerallynotmaintainableinwrit jurisdiction,^{in the interestof justice and having regard to the} factual^{circumstances, thisCourt deems itaPProPriate} to disposeofthematterwithnecessarydirectionswithoutdelving into the^{merits of the contractual dispute'}

¶36

4.Accordingly,thisWritPetitionisdisposedofwiththe following^directions:

¶37

¶38

i.Thepetitionerisdirectedtosubmitthependingbillsfor the period^{from January} '^{2}lg to July' 2OL9' along with} all requisite^{documents' including proofr of statrrtory} compliance^{(e.g', PF challans'ESI details' performance} certificates,^{etc'), within a period of four (4) weeks from} the'date^{of receipt of a cbpy of this order' '} '

¶39

Upon such^{submission, the respondentsslatl verify the} documentsandprocessthebillsinaccordarrcewithlaw

¶40

¶41

¶42

ancl t]re terms of the contract, and release the eligible amount, including the EMD if found refundable, within four' (4) weeks thereafter.

¶43

111

¶44

If €my deficiencies are found in the documents, the restrrondents shall communicate the same in writing to the petitioner within a reasonable time, giving an opportunity to rectify such deficiencies.

¶45

1V If the petitioner is aggrieved by an-v denial of payment by the respondents upon such verification, he is at liberty to avai.[ a.n appropriate remed.y before a competent civil court

¶46

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶47

closed. No costs

¶48

¶49

SD/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

N OFFICER

To,

The Managiing Director, Musheerabad, The Telangana State Road Transport Corporalion ,^{Musheerabad, Hyderabad, TelanganaState.}

¶54

The Re3ional Manager, Telangiana State Road Transport Corporation, Mahabub Nagar Region, Mahabub Nagar, Telangana State.

¶55

The Acc,runts Officer, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, 0/o the Regional Manager, Mahabub Nagar, Telangana State.

¶56

The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Gadwal Depot, Mlahabub Nagar.

¶57

Pvu l.I -.*'-._-<

¶58

One CC to SRI S. M. SUBHAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

One CC to SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TGSRTC)

¶60

Two CD^,3opies

¶61

¶62

.i..-:i.-_r -. * -.?*!&^di.$,,.i{-4'' 'i {r'i

I a

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611012025

ORDER

THE S
t
o
(J -a
' 6 '!'B ?flz[
,
* *
DlT

¶69

WP.No.19492 ot 2025

¶70

¶71

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶72

WITHOUT C STS JKS e"f/ze ,

B. Linga Swamy v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Linga Swamy v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Haque Construction Company Vs Union of India

Velpula Salavva, Vs Central Power Distribution Company of a.P.Limited

Chavutoori Kishore Babu Vs Union of India

Chennuri Venkata Bhardwaj Vs The state of Telangana

Mr. Purelli Ramana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Y. Suresh Vs The State of Telangana