APHC010649312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 33627/2025 Between: 1. G LINGA NAIDU, S/O. VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. MUDIGUBBA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARMTENT,SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINACE AND PLANNING DEPARMTENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PVS ICON, PATHURU CROSS ROAD, TADEPALLI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUTAPARTHY, SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R P. R. DIVISION, PENUKONDA,SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 7. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB DIVISION, DHARMAVARAM.SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 8. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, PUTAPARTHY, SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 9. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MUDIGUBBA MANDAL, MUDIGUBBA. ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 10. THE SACHIVALAYAM ENGINEER ASSISTANT, MUDIGUBBA VILLAGE, MUDIGUBBA. 11. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PUTAPARTHI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, 515134. 12. THE MUDIGUBBA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MUDIGUBBA, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, 51551 13. THE DEPUTY MPDO, MUDIGUBBA MANDAL, MUDIGUBBA, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, 51551. RR 11 TO 13 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER COURTS ORDER DT.23.02.2026 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 ...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 appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing an amount of Rs. 46,66,299/- to the petitioner for the execution of works vide work id nos. 1.127053814015080056, 2.127053814015080047, 3.127053814015080049, 4.127053814015080046, 5.127053814015080053, 6.127053814015080048 and 7.127053814015080054 respectively as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Law and against the Principles of Natural Justice and against the Norms of the Public Policy and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities to release the admitted final bill amount of Rs. 46,66,299/- payable to the petitioner with an interest @ 24 percent per annum till the payment is made 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 respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs. 46,66,299/- to the petitioner for the execution of works, vide work id nos. 1. 127053814015080056 2. 127053814015080047, 3. 127053814015080049, 4. 127053814015080046, 5. 127053814015080053, 6. 127053814015080048 and 7. 127053814015080054 respectively, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 permit me to implead the party/proposed 11 to 13 respondents in WP No. 33627 of 2025 and pending miscellaneous petition therein, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINATH PENDYALA 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 The Court made the following order: Heard, Sri Srinath Pendyala, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1 to 8 and 11, and Sri Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 9, 12 and 13. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.46,66,299/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the works executed i.e., i) Providing CC Road from Damodar Naidu House to Dr. Krishnaiah House & C.Suryanarayana House to M.Damodar House at Mudigubba Village and Mandal, ii) Providing CC Road from Bunipalli Krishnaiah House to M.Krishna House and Ramakrishna House to hindravali House and M.Krishna House to Subbaiah House and Srinivasulu House to Vasanthamma House at Mudigubba Village and Mandal, iii) Providing CC Road from R&B Building to Srinivasulu House and Ashok Shetti House to R&B Building back side gate at Mudigubba Village and Mandal, iv) Providing CC Road from Kullayappa House to Sreenivas House and Church back side street from Ramu Hose to Reddemma House at Mudigubba Village and Mandal, v) Providing CC Road from D.Venkata Naidu House to Dr. Basha House and Muslims Samashanavatika to T.V.Ramana House at Mudigubba Village and Mandal, vi) Providing CC Road from Mallikarjuna Setti House to Kullayappa House and Gopal House and Jayachandra House to Mangala Venkatanaryana House and Rangareddy House at Mudigubba Village and Mandal, and vii) Providing CC Road from Mathaiah Convent to Boya Gangulappa House and Gandla Buddappa House to Pulla Nagaraju House and Mathaiah Convent to Araitkayala Siddappa House at Mudigubba Village and Mandal, vide Work ID.Nos.127053814015080056, 27053814015080047, 27053814015080049, 27053814015080046, 27053814015080053, 27053814015080048 and 27053814015080054, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Sri Srinath Pendyala, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the works were granted under MGNREGS convergence with 14th Finance Commission Funds. Learned counsel would further submit that certain payments have been made to the petitioner and that the balance amount payable is Rs.15,39,837/-. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up, Sri Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 9, 12 and 13, submitted instructions of the Panchayat Development Officer, Mudigubba Gram Panchayat, Mudigubba Mandal, which reads as follows: “It is submitted that the petitioner executed 7 works for the construction of CC roads in the Mudigubba Gram Panchayat and Mandal, Sree Satya Sai District under MGNREGS convergence 14th Finance Commission Funds. It is further submitted that the payment was made to the petitioner for the 4th work with an amount of Rs.3,67,261/- and 6th work with an amount of Rs.3,94,608/- through PFMS (Public Financial Management System) Online Portal after deduction. This Gram Panchayat will pay the remaining 5 works for an amount of Rs.15,39,837/- after deduction within 3 months.” 5. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the net amount payable to the petitioner, after statutory deductions, is Rs.15,39,837/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.15,39,837/-. 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”. 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 7. Given the instructions furnished by the Panchayat Development Officer, Mudigubba Gram Panchayat, Mudigubba Mandal, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.15,39,837/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Seven only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within three (03) 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 Date: 16.04.2026 SNI 112 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 33627 of 2025 Date: 16.04.2026 SNI