APHC010024052026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1766/2026 Between: 1. B HARI BABU, S/O. B. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.N0.1/24A, MAIN ROAD, CHANDRAPALEM VILLAGE, SANTHANUTHALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523225. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT RAJ WING, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523001. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, KANDUKUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523105. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB-DIVISION, KONDAPI, PRAKSAM DISTRICT-523270. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB-DIVISION, 2 KONDAPI, PRAKSAM DISTRICT-523270. 7. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, , MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD OFFICER, KONDAPI, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523001. 8. THE VENNURU GRAM PANCHAYATY, REP. ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, VENNURU VILLAGE, KONDAPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523270. ...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 declaring action of the Respondents in not releasing the bill amount worth of Rs.17,97,882/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Two Only) with interest vide Agreement Agt No. /2023- 24 dated.01.08.2023 with M.Book.No.35/B/ZP/22 under grant GGMP to the petitioner till today after completion of execution of Work Construction of CC drain and cover Slabs at SC Colony in Vennuru Village and GP of Kondapi Mandal and causing heavy loss with interest even though total works were completed within time as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the amounts worth of Rs.17,97,882/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Two Only) with interest vide Agreement Agt No. /2023-24 dated.01.08.2023 with M.Book.No.35/B/ZP/22 under grant GGMP payable to the petitioner herein with interest @ 24 percent per annum for the delayed amount till date of realization for the works executed by 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 to release the amounts worth of Rs. 17,97,882/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Two Only) with interest vide Agreement Agt No. /2023-24 dated.01.08.2023 with M.Book.No.35/B/ZP/22 under grant GGMP payable to the petitioner herein with interest @ 24% per annum for the delayed amount till date of realization for the works executed by the petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass 3 IA NO: 2 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 May be pleased to permit the petitioner herein to amend the cause title i.e. the Respondent No. 8 as “The Vennuru Gram Panchayathy, rep. by it's Secretary, Vennuru village Kondapi Mandal, Prakasam District-523270” instead of “The Kondapi Gram Panchayathy, rep. by it s Panchayat Secretary, Kondapi village and Mandal, Prakasam District 523270 in the above mentioned writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK MEERAVALI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri Shaik Meeravali, learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 7 and 8. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the amount payable to the petitioner, to a tune of Rs.17,97,882/-, in relation to the work i.e., Construction of CC Drain and culvert slabs at SC colony in Vennuru Village and Gram Panchayat, Kondapi Mandal vide Agreement No…/2023-24 dated 01.08.2023 with M.Book.No.35/B/ZP/22, as illegal and arbitrary. 4 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Kandukur – 4th respondent dated 18.02.2026. 4. As seen from the instructions, the total value of the work done by the petitioner in relation to the aforementioned works is Rs.17,92,265/-. After QC recovery/ Statutory recovery of Rs.1,78,764/-, the balance amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.16,13,501/-. 5. In reply, Shaik Meeravali, learned counsel for the petitioner, endorses that the amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.16,13,501/-. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions and the submission of learned counsel on either side, there is no dispute regarding the amount of Rs.16,13,501/- payable to the petitioner. 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 5 7. Given the submission of learned counsel on either, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.16,13,501/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred and One 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: 26.02.2026 SNI 6 172 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1766 of 2026 Date: 26.02.2026 SNI