APHC010010682026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1318/2026 Between: 1. SIDDHARDHA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD, OFF AT. 102, NEW CASTLE APARTMENT USHODAYA ENCLAVE, LAKSHMI NAGAR COLONY KOMPALLY, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500100 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. N. SURENDER BABU ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 522238 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, IRRIGATION DEPARTEMENT BUCKINGHAMPETA, VIJAYAWADA, 4. THE SUPERINTENDENTING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE VIJAYWADA 520007 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, KRISHNA CANAL DIVISION VIJAYAWADA 520007 6. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA DISTRICT 520001 p. 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 or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of the Respondents in withholding an amount of Rs.3,17,285/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-Five only) despite making innumerable representations as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent herein to release Rs.3,17,285/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-Five only) with interest 24percent p.a. towards damages from the date the amounts fell due 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 herein to consider the repre sentations of the petitioner and release the amount of Rs.3,17,285/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-Five only) in a time bound manner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.3,17,285/- relating to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. (i) Formation of WBM road with BT surface from Km 0.000 to km 6.400 KRF bank above the barrage in Venkatapalem village limits, (ii) Formation of BT road on KRF bank from Km 48.025 to Km 54.085 and (iii) Formation of WBM road with BT surface from Km 18.00 to Km 21.00 p. 3 KRF bank above the barrage in village limits of Harichandrapuram, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri K. Gunasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Narsingarao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Water Resource Department, appeared for respondents 1, 3 & 5, and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, appeared for respondents 2 & 6. 3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.5. It was contended that the aforementioned works were completed by the petitioner within the agreement period. At para no.4 of the counter-affidavit, it was stated as follows: “It is respectfully submitted that, for the above said works the petitioner has entered agreement on 20.05.2004, 26.05.2004 & 18.05.2004 respectively after verification of old records the above works are completed and final bill payment were completed. But the petitioner asked the EMD and FSD payments for the above said works. For this in order to pay the EMD & FSD bills online through NIDHI portal the Administrative sanction, Technical Sanction & Digital M Book need to be created. As soon as approval of administrative sanction the said FSD Bills will be processed.” 4. Thus, as seen from the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.3,19,622/- (as per the calculation mentioned in the counter-affidavit). 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 p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 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.”. 5. Given the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.3,19,622/- (as per calculation mentioned in the counter-affidavit) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In respect of the interest part concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 19.02.2026 TVN p. 5 314 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1318 of 2026 Date: 19.02.2026 TVN