APHC010099522023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5035/2023 Between: 1. ALAPATI MEHAR DIED, S/O PRABHAKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O 5-194, DEVIPATNAM ROAD, RAMPACHODAVARAM (V) AND (M), ASR DISTRICT. 2. ALAPATI SURYA KUMARI,, W/O. LATE PRABHAKAR RAO, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-191, DEVIPATNAM ROAD, RAMPACHODAVARAM (V) AND (M), ASR DISTRICT. 3. KARAM RAMANA,, W/O. LATE ALAPATI MEHAR, AGED 32 YEARS R/O. D.NO.5-191, DEVIPATNAM ROAD, RAMPACHODAVARAM (V) AND (M), ASR DISTRICT. 4. KARAM AADHYA,, D/O. LATE ALAPATI MEHER, AGED 10 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-191, DEVIPATNAM ROAD, RAMPACHODAVARAM (V) AND (M), ASR DISTRICT. 5. KARAM AARADHYA,, D/O. LATE ALAPATI MEHER, AGED 8 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-191, DEVIPATNAM ROAD, RAMPACHODAVARAM (V) AND (M), ASR DISTRICT. PETITIONERS 4 AND 5 ARE BEING MINORS, REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, KARAM RAMANA, W/O. LATE ALAPATI MEHAR, AGED 32 YEARS, PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED SOLE PETITIONER AS PER COURTS ORDER DT.31.12.2025 IN IA 1 OF 2025 ...PETITIONER(S) p. 2 AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TADEPALLI, AMARAVATI. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ASR DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, Y.RAMAVARAM (M), ASR DISTRICT, 5. PROJECT DIRECTOR, , DWMA KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT Y.RAMAVARAM (M), ASR DISTRICT. 7. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDL, AMARAVATI. 8. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, INDIA. 9. THE DALIPADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, Y.RAMAVARAM MANDAL, ASR DISTRICT. ...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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the inaction on the part of the repundei its herein not releasing and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.3,99,079/- with interest to the petitioner under the grant of NREGS with SDF for execution of various works in the Grama Panchayat area as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.3,99,079/- with interest under the grant of NREGS with SDF to the p. 3 petitioner forth with, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.3,99,079/- with interest under the grant of NREGS with SDF to the petitioner forth with, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 May be pleased to permit the Petitioners herein / Proposed Writ Petitioners No.2 to 5 to come on record as legal heir of deceased sole Writ Petitioner as Writ Petitioners No.2 to 5 in W.P.No.5035/202 3 and to pursue the case and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VARREY VENTAKATA NAGAVISHNU TEJA 2. VARREY VENKATA NAGA VISHNU TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Ch. Bhargav, learned counsel representing Ms.V.V.N.V. Teja, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant p. 4 Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents 1 to 5 and 7; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare, for respondent No.6; learned standing counsel for Central Government, for respondent No.8 and Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent No.9. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.3,99,079/- payable to the petitioner in relation to execution of various works in the Gram Panchayat under the grant of MGNREGS, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.4, wherein it was stated that out of the total amount of Rs.3,99,079/-, an amount of Rs.1,98,414/- and Rs.1,05,287/- was credited to the account of the vendor and the balance amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.95,378/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions and the submission of learned counsel on either side, there is no dispute regarding the amount of Rs.95,378/- payable to the petitioner. 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 p. 5 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 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 submission of learned counsel on either, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.95,378/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Eight only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of various works in the Gram Panchayat under the grant of MGNREGS, 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: 13.03.2026 IKN