APHC010110962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5919/2025 Between: 1. M/S N.V.G CONSTRUCTIONS,, REP., BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K. VISWANATH S/O HANUME GOWDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D.NO.2-5, 2ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.L, THOTAKANUMA VILLAGE, VENKATAGIRI KOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ SS RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR 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 to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein, in withholding the payment for final bill Gross amount Rs.28,20,601/- even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in 2 relation to the work i.e., 'Construction of CC Approach road to Yernapalli H/o. Pamuganipalli GP in V.kota Mandal' vide Agreement No.48/2023-24, Dt. 13.09.2023' is questioned, as the same is illegal and arbitrary apart from violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 86 300-A of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment for Gross amount Rs.28,20,601/- with an interest @24percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work., forthwith and pass s 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 to DIRECT the respondents to consider for payment for Gross amount Rs.28,20,601/- with regard to the completion of work i.e., “Construction of CC Approach road to Yernapalli H/o. Pamuganipalli GP in V.kota Mandal” vide Agreement No.48/2023-24, Dt. 13.09.2023” with an interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA 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 Anand Surya, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 paying the amount payable to the petitioner, to a tune of Rs.28,20,601/-, in relation to the work i.e., Construction of CC Approach road 3 to Yernapalli H/o. Pamuganipalli Gram Panchayat in V.Kota Mandal vide Agreement No.48/2023-24, dated 13.09.2023, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Chittoor – 3rd respondent dated 08.03.2026. 4. As seen from the instructions, the total value of the work done by the petitioner in relation to the aforementioned works is Rs.29,22,546/-. After QC recovery of Rs.3,70,914/-, the balance amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.25,51,632/-. 5. In reply, Sri Anand Surya, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, endorses that the amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.25,51,632/-. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions and the submission of learned counsel on either side, there is no dispute regarding the amount of Rs.25,51,632/- 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 4 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 submission of learned counsel on either, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.25,51,632/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Two only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within three (03) 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: 11.03.2026 SNI 5 176 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5919 of 2025 Date: 11.03.2026 SNI