APHC010045822026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3001/2026 Between: 1. C. RAJA REDDY,, S/O. RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. S.N. COLONY, RAYACHOTY, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT (R.W.S.II), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT- 516004. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT- 516001. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, , RWS AND S DEPARTMENT (R.W.S.II) C-BLOCK, VASUDHA TOWERS, SAIPURAM COLONY, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. Page 2 of 5 521225 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, (RWS AND S), PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (R.W.S.II) KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT.516001 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (R.W.S.II), RWS AND S DIVISION, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 516001 8. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S, SUB- DIVISION, RAYACHOTY, KADAPA DISTRICT.516269 9. ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, , (RWS AND S), T SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 516130 10. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, RWS AND S DIVISION, RAJAMPETA, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. R10 IS IMPLEADED AS PER C.O.DT.06.04.2026 IN IA NO.2 OF 2026 ...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 in paying a sum of Rs.3,81,152/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty One Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Two Only) owards the work entrusted by the respondents in my favour through the Work Order vide Work Order No.DB/TI/NTR Sujalapathakam/2018-19, dated 19.09.2018 issued by the respondent No.7 for the work namely, Drilling of 165 mm dia Bore wells clear in all strata including fixing of casing pipe and coupling plug and complete charges for providing safe drinking water to 252 habs in 14 GPs T. Sundupalli mandal from Mother plant of 10000 LPH Capacity located at of Rajampeta Constituency in Kadapa D/sfr/cr with in a period of thirty (30) days, evenafter, lapse of seven (7) years from the period of completion of the said work, as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power, abdication of the statutory duty cost on them and contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me Page 3 of 5 under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.3,81,152/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty One Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Two 5th Only) towards the work entrusted by the respondents in my favour through the Work Order, dated 19.09.2018 entered into by the respondent No.7 and pass such 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.3,81,152/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty One Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Two Only) towards the works entrusted by the respondents in my favour through the Work Order, dated 19.09.2018 entered into by the respondent No.7 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such IA NO: 2 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 permit me to implead the proposed respondent No. 10 as respondent No.10 in W.P.No.3001 of 2026 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI 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 V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, 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 inaction on part of the respondents in paying a sum of Rs.3,81,152/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty One Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Two Only) owards the work entrusted by the respondents in my favour through the Work Order vide Work Order No.DB/TI/NTR Sujalapathakam/2018-19, dated 19.09.2018 issued by the respondent No.7, 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 7th respondent. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.3,81,152/- and after QC recovery of Rs.35,168/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.3,45,984/-. The written instructions would further disclose that upon bifurcation of the District in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the said work fell within the jurisdiction of the Executive Engineer, Rajampeta, Annamayya District with effect from 01.04.2022. Accordingly, the entire work bill records and connected files were transmitted to the Executive Engineer, Rajampeta by the Executive Engineer, RWS&S, Kadapa. 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.3,45,984/-. 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.” 7. Given the instructions furnished by the 7th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.3,45,984/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Nine 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 PVD 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400