APHC010365442026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 19747/2026 Between: 1. KALAHASTI SRAVANI,, W/O LATE HEMANTH VARMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-1-999, CHITTI GUNTA ROAD, STONE HOUSEPET, NELLORE SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER A N D 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IRRIGATION WING SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524001. 4. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, MINOR AND MAJOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IRRIGATION BHAVAN, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 520007. 5. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CAD WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 520003. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524001. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (WRD) NELLORE CENTRAL DIVISION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524001 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High SRK, J W.P.No.19747 of 2026 2 Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the admitted final bill amount of Rs.38,89,297/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Seven Only) payable to the petitioners husband in relation to work executed for respondents by the husband of the petitioner, for providing above Four (4) works despite completion of several years, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents herein to immediately pay the admitted final bill amount of Rs.38,89,297/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Seven Only) payable to petitioners husband in relation to above work executed for respondents under the said agreements and 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 direct the respondents herein to release the due amount of Rs.38,89,297/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Seven Only) within a stipulated time frame payable to the petitioner in relation to works executed for respondents by the petitioner‟s Husband and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.19747 of 2026 3 O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Irrigation and Command Area Development, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the admitted final bill amount of Rs.38,89,297/- payable to the petitioner’s husband in relation to work executed for respondents by the husband of the petitioner, for providing above four (04) works despite completion of several years, as illegal, and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondents to immediately pay the admitted final bill amount of Rs.38,89,297/- payable to the petitioner’s husband in relation to the above works executed and to pass such other order or orders. 3. The petitioner is the wife of the one Kalahasti Hemanth Varma (hereinafter referred to, as „the deceased‟). According to her, the deceased is a Civil Contractor; that he died intestate on 04.05.2026 leaving behind him the petitioner and his children; that during the life time of the deceased, he was entrusted with the works of (i) repairs and replacement of shuttering arraignments to SRK, J W.P.No.19747 of 2026 4 Papireddypalem Channel system in T.P.Guduru Mandal, (ii) repairs to damaged shuttering arrangements to Jaggar Sahab canal system in T.P.Guduru Mandal, (iii) repairs to shuttering arrangements to M.V.Palem Channel system in T.P.Guduru Mandal, and (iv) repairs and replacement of arrangements to Varigonda Large and Small Tank Supply Channel System in T.P.Guduru Mandal; that he entered into agreements with the respondents vide Agreement Nos.77/DN/2020- 21, dated 03.07.2020, 117/DN/2019-2020, dated 03.07.2020, 75/DN/2020-21, dated 03.07.2020, and 76/DN/2020-21, dated 03.07.2020; that the deceased executed the works accordingly, and completed the same within the stipulated period; that the respondent authorities inspected the works, and recorded the same in M-Book Nos.25NCA/2024-25, 14NCA/2024-25, 75/DA/2020-21, and 24NCA/2024-25, and issued Quality Control Certificates for the aforesaid works, and issued pass order for an amount of Rs.38,89,297/-. (b) It is the grievance of the petitioner that subsequent thereto, the deceased died intestate on 04.05.2026 leaving behind the petitioner and her children, and due to the death of the deceased, the petitioner and her children have been facing financial issues and depending upon the mercy of kith and kin. Though her husband i.e. SRK, J W.P.No.19747 of 2026 5 the deceased executed the entire works within time, an amount of Rs.38,89,297/- was kept pending by the respondent authorities. Even though the petitioner approached the respondent authorities on multiple occasions, requesting for payment of aforesaid pending bill amount, they are not paying the said amount. According to petitioner, having executed the work satisfactorily by her deceased husband, within the prescribed time, non-payment of the bill amount was arbitrary and unjustified. It was further contended that the delay in payment is causing severe financial hardship, necessitating the filing of the present Writ Petition seeking appropriate directions for release of the outstanding amount. 4. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD, on written instructions received from the Executive Engineer, Nellore Central Division, Nellore-7th respondent, submits that the husband of the petitioner executed the works allotted as per the agreements, and as he died, the petitioner is entitled to amount as claimed by her. He further submits that the bills for the work could not be uploaded in NIDHI Portal due to non-availability of funds, and after getting sufficient budget, the said bills will be uploaded in NIDHI Portal for SRK, J W.P.No.19747 of 2026 6 arranging payment to the petitioner. The written instructions are placed on record. 5. A perusal of the written instructions goes to show that there is no dispute with regard to execution of the subject works by the deceased husband of the petitioner, and as per the respondents, they admitted that petitioner being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to an amount as claimed by her. Therefore, since the amount payable to the petitioner, is admitted and undisputed, Writ Petition is maintainable. In M/s. Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors.1, it was held as under: (Paragraph No.8) “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. SRK, J W.P.No.19747 of 2026 7 6. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the respondent authorities assigned the works, as mentioned supra, to the husband of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though her deceased husband executed the said works within the stipulated time to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, they are not releasing the payment covered under the bill even after his demise, due to which, the petitioner and her children have been facing financial hardship and depending upon the mercy of her kith and kin. Therefore, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, since, the respondent No.7 admits the works executed by the deceased husband of the petitioner and concedes that the petitioner is entitled to the amount as claimed by her, and since, it is stated that the bill amount would be processed soon after allocation of budget from the Government, the respondent authorities are directed to pay the admitted amount/net amount to the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. SRK, J W.P.No.19747 of 2026 8 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 11th September, 2026. DNB