APHC010017672025 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: 1215/2025 Between: 1. D VIJAYA BHASKASR REDDY, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAREDDY, AGE 60 YEARS, KALLURU, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, MGNREGS SCHEME, THIRUPATHI DISTRICT 4. THE MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VAKADU MANDAL, THIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 5. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA. 6. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR P D, HOUSING CORPORATION, THIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GUDUR DIVISION,THIRUPATHI DISTRICT 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 topleased 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 amount of Rs.31,97,712 /- for the work executed by the petitioner under Work I.D No.091324008030170246., as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Law and against the Principles of Natural Justice and to issue a consequential direction directing the respondent authorities to release the amounts payable to the petitioner with an interest at the rate of 24PERCENT per annum and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 forthwith release the amount of Rs. 31,97,712/- for the work executed by the petitioner vide Work Id. No. 091324008030170246, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY R 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. K MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY 4. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats 5. 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.31,97,712/- relating to the work p. 3 executed by the petitioner under work I.D.No.091324008030170246, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Mrs. K. Devasri Roshan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, appeared for the respondents 1 to 3 & 7; Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent No.4; Sri K.M. Morrthy, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent No.5 and Sri R. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.6. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.6, submitted the written instructions of the Project Director, DWMA, Tirupati – respondent No.6. 4. A perusal of the said instructions indicates that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work. It further indicates that the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.24,78,533/-, and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.19,86,075/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the amount payable to the petitioner as per the written instructions. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.19,86,075/-. 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 p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 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.”. 6. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.6, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.19,86,075/- 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. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 17.02.2026 TVN p. 5 308 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1215 of 2026 Date: 17.02.2026 TVN