APHC010015922026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1386/2026 Between: 1. M RATTAIAH, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 1-66, VIDYANAGAR, MULAGUNTAPADU (V), SINGARAYAKONDA (M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, MG ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 4. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ CIRCLE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, . PR.PIU DIVISION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 2 SRS,J W.P.No.1386 of 2026 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 declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the amounts to the petitioner for the execution of works. Vide Agreement No. 10/2023-24, dated 14-02-2024, for the payment due from the executed work (2ND final Bill) is Rs. 23,78,528/-, respectively as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Law and against the Principles of Natural Justice and against the Norms of the Public Policy and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities to release the amounts payable to the petitioner with an interest at 18PERCENT per annum and to pass s 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 pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs. 23,78,528/- to the petitioner for the execution of work. Vide Agreement No. 10/2023-24, dated 14-02-2024, respectively, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKAT SAILENDRA G Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Ms. Akhila, learned counsel representing Sri Venkat Sailendra G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents. Page 3 of 5 SRS,J W.P.No.1386 of 2026 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.23,78,528/-, payable to the petitioner for execution of work i.e. „Reconstruction of the Road from G.N.T. Road (NH5) to Annangi (via), Gundlapalli In Maddipadu Mandal (Widening and Strengthening of NH5 Road to Gundlakamma Reservoir via Gundlakamma Village Road from 0/0 to 3/500 KM”, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of respondent No.5. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.23,78,528/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned works and the petitioner‟s entitlement for Rs.23,78,528/-. 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.”. 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 p. 4 SRS,J W.P.No.1386 of 2026 6. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.4, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.23,78,528/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Eight only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the 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: 17.02.2026 IKN p. 5 SRS,J W.P.No.1386 of 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1386 of 2026 Date: 17.02.2026 IKN