APHC010236392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 12194/2025 Between: Mn Engineering Consultancy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PANGULURU RACHANA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Smt.P.Rachana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rasheed Basha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings for respondents 1, 3 to 5 and Smt.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance for 2nd respondent. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent authorities in not releasing the amount of Rs.16,45,315/- for the works done in pursuance of Agreement bearing No.LS.Agt.No.83/2019-2020, dated 20.01.2020 in relation to work “Minor repairs of Industrial Training at Guntur”, as illegal and arbitrary. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the 5th respondent vide Agreement bearing No.LS.Agt.No.83/2019-2020, dated 20.01.2020 in relation to work Minor repairs of Industrial Training at Guntur. The work was executed. However, the respondents are not releasing the amount. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted the instructions of the 5th respondent-Executive Engineer. In Para 2 of the instructions, it was mentioned as follows: “In this regard, I submit that Ls 1st and Final Bill for Rs.17,33,138/- (Gross Amount) and Rs.16,45,315/- (Net Amount) was uploaded vide NIDHI Token No is not generated and same has approved by Pay and Acounts officer and bill status showing is “Bill pending at Division office due to insufficient funds” with Finance Department.” 5. Thus, as evident from the instructions of the 5th respondent, there is no dispute regarding the completion of the work and the petitioner's entitlement. In fact, the bill was uploaded to the CFMS Portal. 6. Thus, the instances referred to above demonstrate the entitlement of the petitioner to the amount due to the completion of work as per the agreement. Since there is no dispute regarding the petitioner’s entitlement, a writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors vs. Chief General Manager & Ors. (In SLP (C) No.14350/2022) 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.” 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.16,45,315/- 3 in respect of the aforementioned work within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated 07.05.2025 KA 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 12194/2025 Dated 07.05.2025 KA