Writ maintainability and limitation in State contract claims turn on admitted liability, acknowledgments, and successor-State apportionment.

A writ petition against the State in a contractual payment dispute may be entertained where official correspondence, file notings and approvals disclose admitted liability and the case does not require oral evidence, so the alternative-remedy objection fails. Acknowledgments of subsisting liability, budget release, part-payment and written admissions can extend limitation, so the claims were treated as within time. Authorisation by both partners and the continuing authority of a partner to complete unfinished firm transactions supported receipt of payment by the 2nd petitioner. For pre-bifurcation contracts, liability was apportioned between the successor States in the statutory ratio.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the plea of alternative civil remedy and disputed questions of fact in a contractual claim against the State; (ii) whether the claims for payment under the cloud-seeding contracts were barred by limitation or were saved by acknowledgments of liability and part-payment; (iii) whether the 2nd petitioner had locus to receive payment on behalf of the partnership firm; and (iv) how the liability arising from the pre-bifurcation contracts was to be apportioned between the successor States.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the plea of alternative civil remedy and disputed questions of fact in a contractual claim against the State.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative civil remedy was not an absolute bar where the dispute involved State action with a public law element and the material on record disclosed admitted correspondence, file notings and approvals showing liability. A writ court may entertain such a petition in exceptional cases where the State's stand is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to Article 14, especially when the disputed facts do not require elaborate oral evidence.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objection on alternative remedy and disputed facts was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the claims for payment under the cloud-seeding contracts were barred by limitation or were saved by acknowledgments of liability and part-payment.

Analysis: The contractual payment schedule, the later letters, budget release, RTI-disclosed file notings, and approvals up to the level of the Chief Minister constituted acknowledgments of subsisting liability within the meaning of limitation law. The part-payment for the 2007 contract also extended limitation. The communications evidenced a debtor-creditor relationship and a continuing admission of dues, and the later written admissions and acknowledgments under the contract law further extended the time to sue. On that basis, the claims for all three contracts were held to be within limitation.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rejected and the claims were held to be within time.

Issue (iii): Whether the 2nd petitioner had locus to receive payment on behalf of the partnership firm.

Analysis: The partnership dispute had been referred to arbitration and both partners had authorised the 2nd petitioner to collect payment and issue a valid receipt on behalf of the firm. The continuing authority of partners in winding up and completion of unfinished transactions supported receipt of payment by one partner for the dissolved or disputed firm.

Conclusion: The 2nd petitioner had locus to receive the amounts on behalf of the firm.

Issue (iv): How the liability arising from the pre-bifurcation contracts was to be apportioned between the successor States.

Analysis: The contracts were entered into before bifurcation and the statutory scheme governing successor liability required apportionment where the contract was not for the exclusive purpose of either successor State. The liability therefore had to be divided in the statutory population ratio between the two successor States.

Conclusion: The liability was apportioned between the State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh in the ratio directed by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to recover the admitted dues under all three cloud-seeding contracts, with interest and costs, and the liability was directed to be borne by the successor States in the proportion fixed by the statutory scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: In a writ petition against the State arising out of contractual obligations, admitted liability shown by official correspondence, file notings and approvals can found maintainability and extend limitation through acknowledgment, and successor-State liability for pre-bifurcation contracts must be apportioned under the governing reorganisation statute.

---