Telangana High Court Expresses Strong Displeasure Over Delayed Payments to Fish Seedling Suppliers
The Telangana High Court on Friday recorded its strong resentment against the state government for repeated delays and extensions in clearing pending bills to agencies that supplied fish seedlings across the state. Justice K Sharath was hearing a contempt petition filed by the suppliers, alleging violation of an earlier high court order directing timely payment.
Court Questions Selective Payments and Grants Final Deadline
The judge sharply questioned the state government over why payments were cleared to some suppliers while others continued to face significant delays. When the state counsel sought an additional four weeks to settle the remaining dues, the court expressed clear disappointment at the absence of a satisfactory response to its query.
Granting what it termed a final opportunity of two weeks, the court directed that if payments were not cleared by then, Special Chief Secretary of the Finance Department, Sandeep Kumar Sultania, must appear personally before the court on March 13. The matter was thereafter adjourned, with the court emphasizing that sufficient time had already been granted to the state.
Background of the Contempt Petition
The contempt petition was filed by RK Fish Traders and Seed Suppliers and others, who alleged substantial delays in payment for fish seedlings supplied three years ago. Counsel for the petitioners, DL Pandu, submitted that of the 12 suppliers who had approached the court, payments were made to only two, with no clarity on when the remaining suppliers would receive their dues.
He pointed out that in February 2025, the high court had specifically directed the government to clear the payments. As the order was not implemented, the suppliers were compelled to initiate contempt proceedings to seek judicial intervention and accountability.
Judicial Scrutiny and Government Accountability
After hearing detailed submissions from both sides, the judge questioned the government pleader on why payments were stopped for 10 petitioners after clearing dues to just two suppliers. Finding the government's response unsatisfactory and lacking in transparency, the court expressed clear dissatisfaction with the handling of the matter.
The court noted that the state had been given ample time to resolve the issue and declined to allow the further four-week extension sought by the government counsel. This judicial stance underscores the importance of timely payment to suppliers who provide essential agricultural inputs like fish seedlings, which are crucial for the state's aquaculture sector.
The case highlights ongoing concerns about government accountability in financial matters and the judicial system's role in ensuring compliance with court orders. The final two-week deadline represents a significant test of the state government's commitment to resolving long-pending financial obligations to small and medium suppliers.
