APHC010083032026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5169/2026 Between: 1. PANNURU AMARANATAHA REDDY, S/O. P. SURYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. 1-7A, UPPALAPADU VILLAGE, MUDIGUBBA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS . PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARMTENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING,VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522 238. 2. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS , PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING,VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522 238 3 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PVS ICON, PATHURU CROSS ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522 501 4 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUTAPARTHY, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.515 133. 5 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, . P. R.L DIVISION, PENUKONDA, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.515 110 6. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R.I DIVISION, 2 DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.515 671 7. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, STRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, IITAPARTHY, SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT.515 133 ...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 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 grant interim direction to the Respondents to forthwith pay the principle amounts for the approved bill/s due to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 57,045/-along with EMD deposits of Rs. 40,629/-for the works executed by the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAVULURU KRISHNA SAI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri Navuluru Krishna Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Finance and Planning for the respondents. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withholding net amount of Rs.97,674/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., 1) Providing CC Road from R&B Road to Ankireddy Thota at Nethivarampalli Village of Bathalapalli Mandal, 2) 3 Providing CC Road from Water tank to SC Colony at Garisepalli Village of Bathalapalli Mandal, 3) Providing CC Road from Sankar House to Mudigubba Mandal and 4) Providing CC Road at Uppalapdu SC Colony Village of Mudigubba Mandal, 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 Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Penukonda – 5th respondent dated 23.03.2026. 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.97,674/-. 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.97,674/-. 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 4 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 Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Penukonda – 5th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.97,674/- (Rupees Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Four only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, within one (01) month 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: 24.03.2026 SNI 5 156 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5169 OF 2026 Date: 24.03.2026 SNI