Telangana High Court Issues Stern Warning Over Delayed Fish Seedling Payments
The Telangana High Court, based in Hyderabad, has voiced significant frustration regarding the persistent delays by the state finance department in settling outstanding dues owed to private agencies responsible for supplying fish seedlings throughout the state. In a decisive move, the court has established an absolute final deadline of March 9 for the authorities to release all pending payments.
Court Directs Personal Appearance of Finance Secretary
Justice T. Madhavi Devi, presiding over a series of contempt petitions filed by the aggrieved fish seedling suppliers, issued a clear directive. Should the payments fail to be cleared by the stipulated March 9 deadline, Sandeep Kumar Sultania, the Principal Secretary of the Finance Department, is mandated to appear in person before the court on the subsequent hearing date of March 10. The judge firmly declined the state government's request for additional time to process the payments.
Questioning Fund Diversion for Salaries
A particularly contentious point raised during the proceedings involved the alleged diversion of funds. The court critically questioned why financial resources that had been specifically allocated and released for the explicit purpose of clearing these fish seedling bills were instead rerouted to cover employee salary payments. Justice Devi emphasized the impropriety of such actions, drawing a sharp distinction from household budgeting practices.
"This is not like a household budget, where you divert funds for needs other than the planned needs," the judge remarked, underscoring that the earmarked money was intended solely for the petitioners and could not be lawfully utilized for any alternative purposes.
Background of the Contempt Petitions
The current hearing follows an earlier order issued on February 6, where the court had instructed the authorities to clear all pending dues within a four-week period and had similarly ordered the personal appearance of Principal Secretary Sultania if the directive was not complied with. During the latest proceedings, state counsel presented arguments citing the officer's involvement in state budget preparations and the necessity of a pre-payment audit as reasons for the continued delay, seeking an extension.
However, the petitioners' counsel, DL Pandu, vehemently opposed this request. Pandu argued that the finance department had repeatedly cited identical justifications in previous hearings, thereby demonstrating a pattern of non-compliance with the court's explicit orders. The court, unconvinced by the state's explanations, refused to grant any further leniency and adjourned the matter, setting the stage for the critical March 9 deadline.
Judicial Observations on Budget and Accountability
In her observations, Justice Madhavi Devi noted that since the state budget had already been formally presented, there existed no legitimate justification for requesting additional time to release the payments. The court expressed skepticism that the dues would be settled without the direct judicial pressure of summoning the responsible officer. While the officer was exempted from appearing during the Friday hearing, the court made it unequivocally clear that this exemption was conditional and would be revoked immediately if the March 9 deadline was not met.
This case highlights ongoing issues of financial accountability and adherence to judicial mandates within state administrative processes, particularly concerning payments to private vendors essential for state-supported initiatives like fisheries development.
