APHC010480522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 25165/2025 Between: 1. K. CHINNA SAMBAIAH, S/O ADEIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, R/O.D.NO.1-138, PAMIDIPADU VILLAGE BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR). 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RWS AND S CIRCLE, GUNTUR. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S SUB- DIVISION, VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR). Page 2 of 5 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RWS AND S SUB-DIVISION, BOLLAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR). 7. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MPP, BOLLAPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR). 8. THE MELLAVAGU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MELLAVAGU VILLAGE, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR). 9. THE PAMIDIPADU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PAMIDIPADU VILLAGE, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR). 10. THE GARIKAPADU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GARIKAPADU VILLAGE, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR). ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the contract bill amounts to the petitioner i.e., Rs.4,43,714/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Fourteen Only) for providing borewells and cc roads within Bollapalli Mandal, Guntur District (Now Palnadu District), which is illegal, arbitrary, irresponsible, against to the principles of natural justice, apart from being violation of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents to pay the bill amounts of Rs.4,43,714/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Fourteen Only) along with interest to the Petitioner in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents forthwith to pay the bill amounts to the Petitioner i.e., Rs.4,43,714/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Fourteen Only) in respect of the works executed by the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANIKANTA THOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Nirmal Dutt, learned counsel representing Sri Manikanta Thota, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents1 to 7 and Ms.Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned standing counsel for the respondents 8 to 10. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the contract bill amounts to the petitioner i.e., Rs.4,43,714/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Fourteen Only) for providing borewells and cc roads within Bollapalli Mandal, Guntur District (Now Palnadu District), as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Ms.Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned standing counsel submitted the respective written instructions of the respondents 8 to 10. 4. A perusal of the written instructions of 8th respondent would disclose that the petitioner executed the work for providing bore with pump set at ZPH School, Mellavagu Gram Panchayat under 15th Finance Commission Grant and the amount payable to the petitioner after statutory recovery comes to Rs.2,05,440/-. 5. A perusal of the written instructions of 9th respondent would disclose that the petitioner executed the work for providing bore-well with submersible pump set at Ramalayam Centre in Pamidipadu Gram Panchayat under 13th Finance Commission Grant and the amount payable to the petitioner after statutory recovery comes to Rs.95,990/-. 6. A perusal of the written instructions of 10th respondent would disclose that the petitioner executed the work for providing CC road from Martha Rosaiah House to YSR Statue in Garikapadu Gram Panchayat under 15th Finance Commission Grant and the amount payable to the petitioner after statutory recovery comes to Rs.1,25,321/-. Thus, in total the amount payable to the petitioner by the respondents 8 to 10 comes to Rs.4,26,751/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the amount payable by the respondents 8 to 10. 8. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.4,26,751/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors1, it was held at Para No.8 as under: “Be that as it may, the High court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie.Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”. 9. Given the instructions furnished by the respondents 8 to 10, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.4,26,751/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty One only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400