APHC010048042026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2942/2026 Between: 1. PADALA NAGIREDDY, S/O.VEERREDDY, AGED 59 YEARS, D.NO.2- 176, MUSALA RAMALAYAM.RAVULAPALEM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, . REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR.522238 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT.RAJ, AMALAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.533001 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.R. CIRCLE, KAKINADA DISTRICT.533001 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238 ...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 order or orders, direction or directions, Writ or Writs particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamous or any appropriate writ declare the action of the respondents in not refunding the deposited amounts p. 2 as deposited at the time of contract, as security to under take the works, even completing the observation period amounting to Rs.9,82,396/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Six only) ) to the petitioner with interest, till the date of refund from the date of completion of respective observation periods, as illegal, arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 19(i)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to release and repay the deposited amounts for the above works immediately with interest of 24percenstage 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 pleased to direct the respondents to release the amount of Rs.9,82,396/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Six only) towards payment of deposited amounts for the contract works under taken by the petitioner long back, pending disposal of main WP No. of 2025 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Smt.K.Devasri Roshan, 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. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not refunding the deposited amounts as deposited at the time of contract, as security to undertake the works, even completing the p. 3 observation period amounting to Rs.9,82,396/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Six only) ) to the petitioner with interest, till the date of refund from the date of completion of respective observation periods, 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 the 2nd respondent. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.9,47,075/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also endorses the same. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.9,47,075/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors Vs. 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.”. p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 7. Given the instructions furnished by the 2nd respondent, the Writ Petition is Disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.9,47,075/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seventy Five only) 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 PVD