Reserved on : 23-10-2025 Pronounced on : 20-11-2025 Uploaded on : 01-12-2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.28423 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of the respondent authorities in allotting 8% of balance construction work of 6th respondent Gram Sachivalayam in an extent of 4 ½ cents in Pallapu vari Street, Doddanapudi Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District to Respondent No.7 – Sarpanch, besides not paying balance amount of Rs.13,27,315/- out of 40 lakhs bills submitted to 92% completed work as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to maintain status quo in respect of opening of 6th respondent Sachivalayam till balance amount of Rs.13,27,315/- with 12% interest till payment is made to the petitioner. 2. The Petitioner submits that he is a civil contractor by profession and has been carrying out civil contract works in and around his village. In the NV,J WP.No.28423 of 2025 2 year 2020, the Government of Andhra Pradesh proposed to construct Grama Sachivalayams throughout the State. The respondents identified local contractors in each village for this purpose. The Petitioner was identified as suitable one and selected to construct a G + 1 Grama Sachivalayam building in his village in an extent of about 4½ cents, at an estimated cost of Rs.43.60 lakhs. The work was entrusted to the Petitioner on an oral agreement to achieve the object of the Government’s policy. The Petitioner executed about 92% of the construction work by March, 2024 by raising private loans on interest. However, the work had to be stopped due to general election code of conduct. The Petitioner has completed major portion of the work with his own funds and is now under financial hardship due to non-payment of the legitimate dues by the respondents. Subsequently, due to village rivalries and a change in political scenario, the remaining 8% balance work was allotted to the 7th Respondent – Sarpanch. Out of the total estimated amount of Rs.43.60 lakhs, the Petitioner was paid only Rs.26,72,439/-, and the balance amount of Rs.13,27,315/- remains unpaid despite repeated requests. The Petitioner submitted a representation through the Public Grievance Redress System (PGRS) on 22.09.2025 and also issued a legal notice NV,J WP.No.28423 of 2025 3 through an advocate on 27.09.2025, but no response was received from the respondents. Hence the writ petition. 3. Learned Government Pleader furnished written instructions dated 22.10.2025 issued by the Executive Engineer, PR, PIU Division Bhimavaram, stating that the total value of work done by the vendor/petitioner excluding cement supplied by the department is Rs.29,38,686/-. The First payment was made to the vendor Rs.7,18,337/- dated 08.06.2021, 2nd payment was made through MCC for Rs.7,62,396/- dated 08.07.2022, 3rd payment through MCC for Rs.8,23,439/- dated 04.05.2023, 4th payment through MCC for Rs.3,68,513/- for rs.22.02.2024, thereby, total payment was made to the vendor/petitioner. The work was stopped due to lack of funds and no further instructions were issued to continue the work from the Government until May, 2025. The District administration of MGREGS has instructed not to upload old material works without the permission of higher authorities, hence the work was stopped. Bill submitted for balance work if any part was done by the vendor for net amount of Rs.69,948/- and forwarded to MCC, Kalla and the bill was not uploaded and not paid. The petitioner wilfully misguided the Court seeking for unauthorized and illegitimate payment of Rs.13,77,315/- (estimate amount payment) as the amount claimed for the work executed by him is NV,J WP.No.28423 of 2025 4 not correct. All bills to the vendor/petitioner except were paid one bill i.e. Rs.69,948/- only, the bill of Rs.69,948/- will be paid whenever the Government releases grant. It is further reiterated that the total pending amount to payable to the contractor is Rs.69,948/- only and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 4. During hearing, Sri K.K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the citizen of India, and therefore, he is entitled to enjoy all the Constitutional Rights as well as Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, as such the action of the respondents that non-payment of amount for works executed as per the oral terms of sanctioning authority is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. He further submits that, having extracted works and having paid part of the amount having admitted execution and completion of entire contract value, the respondents are under statutory obligation to make good the amount incurred by the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the disputed question of facts in respect of the contract value, execution of work and NV,J WP.No.28423 of 2025 5 entire payments already made as stated and in the absence of any work agreement, sanction of work proceedings and admitting that the entire amounts as admitted were already paid but disputed by the petitioner and other respondents, cannot be adjudicated in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the material available on record. 7. From the written instructions dated 22.10.2025 it appears that, an amount of Rs.40-00 lakhs was estimated contract value for construction of Grama Sachivalayam building at Doddanapaudi-1 village of Kalla Mandal under MGNREG Scheme. The respondents submitted that the total value of work done by the petitioner is Rs.29,38,686/-, out of which, an amount of Rs.1,96,053/- was deducted towards QC Recovery or Withheld amount. Therefore, the balance amount payable to the petitioner is only Rs.27,42,633/-. The respondents paid an amount of Rs.26,72,685/- to the petitioner in four instalments viz., 08.06.2021, 08.07.2022, 04.05.2023 and 22.02.2024. Thus, the balance amount to be paid to the petitioner is only Rs.69,948/-. However, the petitioner is claiming an amount of Rs.13,27,315/- for which, no bills, M-Books, or agreements have been NV,J WP.No.28423 of 2025 6 putforth before this Court in support of his claim. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have produced any piece of paper, evidencing that the petitioner has been awarded contract in respect of the subject works. In the absence of any proof substantiating valid agreements or M-Books, this Court cannot adjudicate the relief as prayed for by the petitioner, 8. It is settled law that the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there are serious disputed question of facts. 9. In payment matters, a party requesting payment generally must provide evidence to prove both the existence of an agreement and the completion of the work and admission liability on part of the authority concerned. It requires agreement between the parties, proof that the work was done according to its terms, and an obligation to pay. Burden of proof entirely lies on the petitioner, who is making claim to convince that the claim is valid. When a petitioner produces no evidence, a serious dispute of fact arises as to the execution of work done and payment to be made by the respondents. In such a case, such disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under writ jurisdiction. NV,J WP.No.28423 of 2025 7 10. Writ of mandamus cannot be issued merely because, a person is praying for. One must establish the right first and then he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for a mandamus. The said position is well settled in a series of decisions. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Grid Corpornation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Others v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) & Another1, was dealing with the question of whether the High Court had made an error in entertaining a writ petition filed seeking compensation for the death of a person due to electrocution, which had allegedly been caused due to the negligence of the authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case observed as under: “6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that "admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants". The High Court failed to appreciate 1 (1999) 7 SCC 298 NV,J WP.No.28423 of 2025 8 that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to Appellant 1 had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995." 12. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment makes it clear that it is well settled proposition of law that when there are disputed question of facts involved in a case, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under NV,J WP.No.28423 of 2025 9 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be proper. 13. In the present case, the relief of sought by the petitioner is not based upon any valid documentary evidence or agreement or M-Book. When the respondents are not agreeing that the petitioner had not carried on such works, raising disputed question of facts, such disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the present writ petition as there are disputed questions of fact involved. 14. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to other alternate remedies available to him under the law. No cost(s). 15. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA Date:20-11-2025 SP NV,J WP.No.28423 of 2025 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.28423 OF 2025 Date: 20-11-2025 W SP