APHC010632862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. PVSR CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR P. SIVA RAMI REDDY, S/O. P.V.SUBBA REDDY AGED 59 YEARS, R/O, H.NO. 1 10, KONDAPURAM (V), DORNIPADU MANDAL NANDYAL DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 3. 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, PANCHAYATHRAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (PRI), VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, (RL PIU) DIVISION NANDYAL NANDYAL DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 32850/2025 PVSR CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR P. SIVA RAMI REDDY, S/O. P.V.SUBBA REDDY AGED 59 YEARS, R/O, H.NO. 1 10, KONDAPURAM (V), DORNIPADU MANDAL NANDYAL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, PANCHAYATHRAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (PRI), VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ URNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, (RL PIU) DIVISION NANDYAL NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI PVSR CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR P. SIVA RAMI REDDY, S/O. P.V.SUBBA REDDY AGED 59 YEARS, R/O, H.NO. 1- 10, KONDAPURAM (V), DORNIPADU MANDAL NANDYAL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, PANCHAYATHRAJ ENGINEERING THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (PRI), VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, (RL ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents for not considering the petitioners representation dated 06.11.2025 for extension of time to execute the works 1 Providing B.T Surface to the road from Sarvaipalle to Chinthakoma Dinne (Via) Patha Kandhukur of Allagadda Mandal with an /2023-2024 datedEstimated Cost Rs. 555.00/- Lakhs as per Agreement No. 23-02-2024 Work-2Providing B.T road from Harivaram to R. Pampalli of Uyyalawada Mandal, Nandyal District with Estimated Cost Rs. 416.00 Lakhs as /2023-2024 dated 23-02-2024 Work-3 Providing B.Tper Agreement No. road from Pedda Bodhanam to Thodendia Palli of Chagalamarri Mandal in Nandyal District with an Estimated Cost Rs. 335.00 Lakhs as per Agreement No. /2023-2024 dated 23-02-2024 as contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary, is against the principles of natural justice and violation of Art 14, 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to either extended the contracts time or to return the EMD amounts deposited by the petitioner for the aforementioned works by considering the petitioners representation dated 06.11.2025 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 to extend the time for the contract to execute the Work 1 Providing B. T Surface to the road from Sarvaipalle to Chinthakoma Dinne (Via) Patha Kandhukur of Allagadda Mandai with an Estimated Cost: Rs. 555.00/- Lakhs as per Agreement Work-2 Providing B.T road fromNo. /2023- 2024 dated 23-02-2024 Harivaram to R. Pampalli of Uyyalawada Mandai, Nandyal District with Estimated /2023-2024 dated 23-02-2024Cost: Rs. 416.00 Lakhs as per Agreement No. Work-3: Providing B. T road from Pedda Bodhanam to Thodendia Palli of Chagalamarri Mandal in Nandyal District with an Estimated Cost: Rs. 335.00 /2023-2024 dated 23-02-2024 or return theLakhs as per Agreement No. EMD amount to the petitioners pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3 The Court made the following order: The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 06.11.2025 for extension of time to execute the works i.e., 1) providing B.T Surface to the road from Sarvaipalle to Chinthakoma Dinna via Patha Kandhukur of Allagadda Mandal with an estimated cost of Rs.555.00/- Lakhs as per Agreement No. /2023- 2024 dated 23.02.2024 2) providing B.T road from Harivaram to R.Pampalli of Uyyalawada Mandal, Nandyal District with estimated costs of Rs.416.00 Lakhs as per agreement No….2023-24 dated 23.02.2024 3) providing B.T road from Pedda Bodhanam to Thodendla Palli of Chagalamarri Mandal in Nandyal District with an estimated cost of Rs.335.00 Lakhs as per Agreement No. /2023-24 dated 23.02.2024. 2. Heard Smt Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt D.Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that after execution of agreements for the above said works, the Election Code came into force, due to which Works 1 to 3 could not be commenced. However, the petitioner commenced Works 4 and 5, which were already in progress, completing about 90% and 60% respectively, and raised bills as per the Measurement Book. She further 4 submitted that due to non-release of pending payments and delay in administrative approvals by the respondents, the petitioner was unable to start the remaining Works 1 to 3. She further submitted that respondent No.4 issued a notice on 12.07.2024 to the petitioner to commence work, for which the petitioner gave reply dated 27.07.2024 stating that the work could proceed only after release of pending bills. She further submitted that the petitioner submitted representations on 15.02.2025 and 16.05.2025 seeking extension of Time (EOT) or return of EMD amounts. Without considering the said representations, respondent No.4 issued notices dated 30.06.2025 and 28.10.2025, for which the petitioner has submitted explanations dated 16.07.2025 and 06.11.2025 respectively, stating that the works could not be started due to non-release of pending bills from the department. She further submitted that the respondents have neither cleared the pending bills nor granted EOT and are proceeding towards termination. Hence, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department, contended that the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a purely contractual matter. He further submitted that the obligations between the petitioner and the respondents arise out of a contract, and the petitioner failed to complete the work within the stipulated time. Hence, no indulgence need be shown to the petitioner. The Writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, 5 prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition at the admission stage itself even without inviting counter. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. As can be seen from the record, the petitioner did not complete the works within the time stipulated under the agreement and submitted representations seeking extension of time or refund of the EMD amounts. Aggrieved by the failure of respondent authorities to consider the said representations, the present Writ Petition has been filed. However, the record clearly shows that the dispute arises out of a contractual obligation between the petitioner and the official respondents governed by the terms of the agreement entered into by them. The law is very clear that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to purely contractual matters, unless there is a failure on the part of the authorities to perform a statutory duty. Mere submission of a representation and alleged non-consideration thereof does not confer a right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Taking the submissions of both the learned counsel into consideration, since issue arising out of a contractual obligation between the petitioner and the official respondents, this Court, instead of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, at the admission stage itself, giving liberty to the petitioner to avail remedies available in accordance with law. 6 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue all remedies available to him in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 25.11.2025 MP 7 224 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.32850 OF 2023 25.11.2023 MP