APHC010085452026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4860/2026 Between: 1. SMT B ADILAKSHMI, W/O. LATE CHENCHURAMA NAIDU, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. CHINTHALAPALEM(V), ZARUGUMALLI(M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 523274 ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT., SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR 522338 2. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATEPR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 523001 3. PROJECT DIRECTOR, DWAMA, ONGOLE 523001 4. MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ZARUGUMALLI(M), PRAKASAM DISTRICT 523274 ...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/Order/ Direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the admitted amounts of bill pursuant, letter in Rc. No. D7/886/EGS/2020 dt.03.11.2025 of the 3rd ' respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction besides violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to release the Bill Amount of Rs. 1,54,013/- and Rs. 1,57.871/- pursuant to letter in Rc.No. D7/886/EGS/2020 dt.03.11.25 of 3rd respondent to Petitioner's A/c No. 36912200042747 of Canara Bank, Zarugumalli Branch forthwith p. 2 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 1st Respondent to release the Bill l Amount of Rs.1,54.013/- and Rs.l,57.871/- pursuant to Letter in Rc.No.D7/886/EGS/2020 dt. 03.11.2025 of the 3rd respondent to Petitioner’s Account No. 36912200042747 of Canara Bank, Zarugumalli Branch forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1 to 3 and Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withhold the amount of Rs.3,11,884/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Development of Housing Colony in Chinthalapalem Village of Zarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam District, pursuant to letter vide Rc.No.D7/886/EGS/2020 dated 03.11.2025, 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 Project Director, DWMA, Ongole – 3rd respondent dated 31.03.2026. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work and the net amount payable to the p. 3 petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.3,11,884/-. 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 work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.3,11,884/-. 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”. 6. Given the instructions furnished by the Project Director, DWMA, Ongole – 3rd respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.3,11,884/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Four 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 Date: 01.04.2026 SNI p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 242 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4860 OF 2026 Date: 01.04.2026 SNI