APHC010067832026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4392/2026 Between: 1. BHASHYAM SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. SAMBASIVARAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 6-4, VENUGOPALA SWAMI VARI STREET, PEDA PARIMI, TULLURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. PINCODE- 522236. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING (R AND UH) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - PIN 522503. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD. (APSHCL), AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-PIN 520007. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, APSHCL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE COMPLEX, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH PIN 522004. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, PR DIVISION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - PIN, 522004. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.522004 p. 2 6. THE DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB DIVISION, TADIKONDA, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.522004 ...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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the payment due Rs.45,03,411/- to the petitioner in respect of the work Levelling of House Sites in Phase-1 Layout of Pedaparimi Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District under OTS funds as illegal and arbitrary. and consequently direct the respondents to release the due amount to the petitioner with interest, and 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 at least 80% of the admitted bill amount relating to the petitioner’s work done forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVI CHANDAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED) 3. GP FOR HOUSING The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Ravi Chandavarapu, 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. p. 3 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the payment due Rs.45,03,411/- to the petitioner in respect of the work Levelling of House Sites in Phase-1 Layout of Pedaparimi Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District under OTS funds, 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 4th respondent. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that as per the department records, the total value of the work done is Rs.45,03,411/- and after deducting statutory recoveries of Rs.11,86,260/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.33,17,151/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.33,17,151/-. 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”. p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 7. Given the instructions furnished by the 4th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.33,17,151/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred and Fifty One only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within four (04) 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