APHC010126822026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 6927/2026 Between: 1. RAJULPATI ATCHYUTHARAO, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 51 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, R/O. GURIVINDAGUNTA VILLAGE, PEDANA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NH-16, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PEDANA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. Page 2 of 4 7. THE G V GUNTA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY-CUM- PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, G.V.GUNTA, PEDANA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 8. THE SARPANCH, G.V.GUNTA GRAM PANCHAYAT, PEDANA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 9. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. 10. THE DIRECTOR, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS), MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. ...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 or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the total final bill amounts totaling Rs.2,83,552/- (being Rs.30,310/- towards construction of RBK Building, Rs.1,77,182/- towards construction of Grama Sachivalayam Building, and Rs.76,060/- towards construction of YSR Wellness Center Building, all at Gurivindagunta Village of Pedana Mandal, Krishna District) along with interest to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to release the total bill amount of Rs.2,83,552/- along with interest to the petitioner 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 the total final bill amounts of Rs.2,83,552/- along with interest to the petitioner pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMESH BABU TALLURI 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 Ramesh Babu Talluri, 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 in not releasing the total final bill amounts totaling Rs.2,83,552/- (being Rs.30,310/- towards construction of RBK Building, Rs.1,77,182/- towards construction of Grama Sachivalayam Building, and Rs.76,060/- towards construction of YSR Wellness Center Building, all at Gurivindagunta Village of Pedana Mandal, Krishna 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 total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.78,67,450/- and after QC / statutory recovery of Rs.93,772/-, the amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.77,73,678/-. Out of which, an amount of Rs.74,90,126/- was already paid to the petitioner and the balance amount of Rs.2,83,552/- is due and payable to the petitioner. 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.2,83,552/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. Page 4 of 4 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.” 6. Given the instructions furnished by the 5th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,83,552/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two 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