Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14049 (AP)

DOMMETI SRINIVAS v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/1347/2026 · 2026-03-17

Subba Reddy Satti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010007512026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1347/2026 Between: 1. DOMMETI SRINIVAS, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, MALE, AGE- 53 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3-60, NITTALAVARI THOTA, PEKERU VILLAGE, IRAGAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPT, GOVT OF A.P OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK NO-2, A.P SECRETERIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.522237 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OFFICE AT PVS ICON BUILDING, NH SERVICE ROAD, PATHURU X ROADS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522501 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, OFFICE AT MARUTHI NAGAR, BHIMAVARAM. 534201 5. THE DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S. SUB-DIVISION, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 534211 6. THE ASSISTANAT ENGINEER, RWS AND S SECTION, IRAGAVARAM. 534217 7. THE PEKERU GRAM PANCHAYT, PEKERU VILLAGE, IRAGAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. REP BY ITS SECRETARY 533263 2 ...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 to declare the action of the respondents in Not Releasing the Admitted Bills to the Petitioner for works. Completed under GGMP Fund Grants, material and Labour supplied by the petitioner for Construction of CC Drains in Various Places of Pekeru Village, Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District., vide M.Book No 615(A)/RWS(K) 2021-2022 in respect of Work I.D No. RWS-4979- 36125 for an amount Rs.2,62,043/- and M.Book No. 616(A)/RWS(K)v 2021-2022 in respect of Work I.D No. RWS-4979-36137 for an amount Rs.3,71,635/- and M.Book No. 681(A)/RWS(K) 2021-2022 in respect of Work I.D' No. RWS-4979-36131 for an amount of Rs.3,55,923/- Total An Amount of Rs. 9,89,601 as illegal, arbitrary and Violation of principles of natural justice, consequently direct to the Respondents to release the Admitted Bill Amounts to the Petitioner 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 Direct the Respondents release the Admitted Bill Amounts to.the petitioner vide M.Book No. 615(A)/RWS(K) 2021- 2022 and M.Book No. 616A(A)/RWS(K) 2021-2022 and M.Book No. 681(A)/RWS(K) 2021-2022 for the Works were Completed under the Grant of GGMP i.e., Construction of. C.C Drains in Various Places of Pekeru Village, Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District., pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MURALI KRISHNA YELISETTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3 The Court made the following order: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri Y.Murali Krishana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents 1 to 6, and Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the 7th respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.9,89,601/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the works executed by it i.e. 1) Construction of CC Drain from Ketha Manga Shed to Bokka Venkataramana House aat Nitlavarithota H/o Pekeru Village of Iragavaram Mandal, 2) Construction of CC Drain from Gubbla Pullamma House to Sanaboyina Ganapati vacant land at Nitlavarithota H/o Pekeru Village of Iragavaram Mandal, and 3) Construction of CC Drain from Reddy Yuvajana Sangam building to Dwarampudi Bullireddy House at Pekeru Village of Iragavaram Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Deputy Executive Engineer, RWS&S Sub-Division, Tanuku – 5th respondent dated 16.03.2026. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works for a total value of Rs.11,68,899/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions of Rs.1,36,620/-, is Rs.10,37,279/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. 6. The petitioner has paid a Court Fee of only Rs.100/-, and the petitioner shall pay the deficit Court Fee of Rs.200/- within one week from the receipt of 4 the order copy and file a memo to that effect, failing which the Registry will take necessary steps for payment of the deficit Court Fee. 7. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs. 10,37,279/-. 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.” 8. Given the instructions furnished by Deputy Executive Engineer, RWS&S Sub-Division, Tanuku – 5th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.10,37,279/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Nine only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of 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: 18.03.2026 SNI 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 263 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1347 of 2026 Date: 18.03.2026 SNI