APHC010071452026 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: 4226/2026 Between: 1. SUGALI SIVANAIK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SYAPURAM, RODDAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT -515291 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522237 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522237 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF RWS AND S, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.-521225 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPUR,ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT -515001 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S, PENUKONDA SUB-DIVISION, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.-515291 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S, SECTION RODDAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.-515291 7. THE KAMBALAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP., BY ITS SARPANCH, SYAPURAM VILLAGE RODDAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.-515291 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 to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on part of the respondents No.6 and 7 in not paying a sum of Rs. 3,99,444/- (Rupees Three Lakh Ninty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Fourty Four Rupees Only) for the expenditure spent on execution of borewells under Augmentation of PWS Scheme in Syapuram, Kambalapalli gram panchayath, Roddam Mandal, Penukona sub division, Sri Satya Sai District as illegal, arbitrary and quite contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 3,99,444/- (Rupees Three Lakh Ninty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Fourty Four Rupees Only) and along with the interest @12percent for execution of borewells under Augmentation of PWS Scheme in syapuram, Kambalapalli gram panchayath, Roddam Mandal, Penukona sub division, Sri Satya Sai District 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 pay a sum of Rs. 3,99,444/- (Rupees Three Lakh Ninty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Fourty Four Rupees Only) and along with interest @12% for execution of borewells under Augmentation of PWS Scheme in syapuram, Kambalapalli gram panchayath, Roddam Mandal, Penukona sub division, Sri Satya Sai District,pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING p. 3 The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri B.Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, 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 No.6 and 7 in not paying a sum of Rs.3,99,444/- for the expenditure spent on execution of borewells under Augmentation of PWS Scheme in Syapuram, Kambalapalli gram panchayath, Roddam Mandal, Penukona sub division, Sri Satya Sai District, 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 5th 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.3,99,443/-. 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 works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.3,99,443/-. 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, p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 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”. 6. Given the instructions furnished by the 5th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.3,99,443/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Three only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within two (02) 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