APHC010243612025 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: 13061/2025 Between: 1. SRI LAVETI MALLESWARA RAO, S/O APPALASWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, TURAKAPETA VILLAGE, L.N.PETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 4. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER DPO, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER S E, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 7. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, L.N.PETA MANDAL, O/O MPDO OFFICE SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 8. THE EXTENSION OFFICER PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF MPDO OFFICE, L.N.PETA SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SRIKAKULAM SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 11. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MPDO OFFICE, L.N.PETA, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 12. THE SARPANCH, TURAKAPETA GRAMA PANCHYAT, TURAKAPETA GRAMA SACHIVALAYAM, TURAKAPETA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT, L.N.PETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 13. THE TURAKAPETA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPT. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, TURAKAPETA GRAMA SACHIVALAYAM TURAKAPETA VILLAGE, L.N.PETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM 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 Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing and not crediting the amounts, even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the execution of works for laying of CC Roads of T.K.Puram Gram Panchayat, L.N.Peta Mandal, Srikakulam District, in respect of two works, out of three works viz, (ii) From MPP School, Turakapeta to P.V Ramana Murthy Agricultural Land at Rs.2.00 Lakhs (Estimated Value) (iii) From P.V. Ramana Murthy Agricultural Land to Krishnapuram MPPUP School, Krishnapuram at Rs.2.00 Lakhs (Estimated Value) for total admitted amount of Rs. 3,92,062/- lakhs (Three lakhs ninety two thousand sixty two rupees) by District Panchayat Officer, the 5th respondent, along with interest 24 percentage interest, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the constitution of India and consequently direct all the official respondents to pay the total admitted amount of Rs.3,92,062/- lakhs along with interest @ 24 percentage per annum from the date of execution of the work till the payment of the amount, 3 due to the petitioner in respect of execution of afore mentioned works 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 to direct the respondent authorities to release the admitted contract bills for total an amount of Rs. Rs. 3,92,062/- lakhs, along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of execution of the work till the payment of the amount, for the works executed by the petitioner, in relating to the works i.e lay of CC Roads (ii) From MPP School, Turakapeta to RV Ramana Murthy Agricultural Land at Rs.2.00 Lakhs (Estimated Value) (iii) From RV. Ramana Murthy Agricultural Land to Krishnapuram MRRUR School, Krishnapuram at Rs.2.00 Lakhs (Estimated Value) forthwith, pending disposal of the main Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Dr.MOJJADA RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Dr. Mojjada Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents 1 to 6, 9 and 10 and Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the respondents, 7, 8, 11 to 13. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withholding the balance amount of Rs.3,92,062/- in relation to 4 the works executed by the petitioner i.e., i) Construction of CC Road from Turakapeta Road junction to MPP School, Turakapeta; ii) Construction of CC Road from MPP School P.Venkataramana Murthy site at Krishnapuram; and iii) Construction of CC Road from P.Venkataramana Murthy site to MPUP School, Krishnapuram, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel, submitted the written instructions of the Panchayat Secretary, Turakapeta Gram Panchayat – 13th 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.5,06,613/-. Out of the same, an amount of Rs.2,03,200/- was already paid to the petitioner, and the balance amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.3,03,413/-. 5. In reply, Dr. Mojjada Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, endorses that the balance amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.3,03,413/-. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions and the submission of learned counsel on either side, there is no dispute regarding the balance amount of Rs.3,03,413/- payable to the petitioner. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways 5 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 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 balance amount of Rs.3,03,413/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Three Thousand Four Hundred and Thirteen only) 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: 11.03.2026 SNI 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 6 183 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 13061 of 2025 Date: 11.03.2026 SNI