APHC010226432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 11793/2025 Between: 1. M/S. S.V.S. ENGINEERING AND COMPANY,, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR S V SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O. BALA SESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC.CONTRACTOR, R/O. H.NO.7-271, NEHRU BAZAR, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PINCODE. 523316. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PVS ICON, D.NO. 12-47, PATHURU X ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, JALAKALA, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PVS ICON, D.NO. 12-47, PATHURU X ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE DIRECTOR JALAKALA AND WATERSHEDS, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PVS ICON, D.NO. 12-47, PATHURU X p. 2 ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY (DWMA), ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AP CFMS OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, C-BLOCK, ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA 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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents not releasing the 9 bore wells Withheld Amount @ 2 percent, the 9 bore wells Deisel Hike amount and the 22 bore wells EMD and FSD amounts respectively Rs. 10,404/-, Rs.26,730/- and Rs. 1,29,797/- with a Grand Total of Rs. 1,94,894/-, even after completion of defect liability period, refund payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e.. Drilling of bore well under YSR Jalakala scheme is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the 9 bore wells Withheld Amount @ 2 percent, the 9 bore wells Deisel Hike amount and the 22 bore wells EMD and FSD amounts respectively Rs. 10,404/-,Rs.26,730/- and Rs.1,29,797/- with a Grand Total of Rs. 1,94,894/-, to the petitioner in respect of above-mentioned work forthwith and pass 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 please to direct the respondents to release the 9 bore wells Withheld Amount @ 2%, the 9 bore wells Deisel Hike amount and the 22 bore wells EMD 86 FSD amounts respectively Rs. 10,404/-, Rs.26,730/- 86 Rs. 1,29,797/- with a Grand Total of Rs. 1,94,894/- , to the petitioner in respect of work i.e.. Drilling of bore well under YSR Jalakala scheme, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BATHALA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): p. 3 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.1,94,894/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. Drilling of bore well under YSR Jalakala scheme, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri B. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for the respondents. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Project Director, DWMA, Ongole – respondent No.6. 4. A perusal of the said instructions indicates that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.1,66,931/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the amount payable to the petitioner as mentioned in the written instructions. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.1,66,931/-. 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 p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 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 respondent No.6, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.1,66,931/- payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, 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: 30.03.2026 TVN p. 5 232 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 11793 of 2025 Date: 30.03.2026 TVN