APHC010268762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 13932/2025 Between: 1. JIGGIREDDY MANIKANTA MOHAN,, S/O SRINU, AGED ABOUT- 27 YEARS, D.NO- 1-91/1, BC COLONY, ROWTULAPUDI(V), ROWTULAPUDIMANDAL, KAKINADA DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA (EARLIER EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, RWS AND S PROJECT CIRCLE KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT 5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARVATHI ...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 p. 2 pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action on the part of the respondents herein not releasing and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.11,70,008/- with interest to the petitioner under the grant of GGMP Funds (Gadapa Gadapaku Mana Prabhutwam) for execution and completion of various works in the Rowthulapudi Village of Rowthulapudi mandal as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents to release and pay the amounts of worth of Rs. 11,70,008/- with interest to the petitioner under grant of GGMP Funds forthwith, and to 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 respondents to release and pay the bill amounts of worth of Rs.11,70,008/- with interest to the petitioner under grant of GGMP Funds (Gadapa Gadapaku Mana Prabhutwam) forthwith for execution and completion of various works in the Rowthulapudi Village of Rowthulapudi mandalpending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Ms.B.Sameera, 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 and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.11,70,008/- p. 3 with interest to the petitioner under the grant of GGMP Funds (Gadapa Gadapaku Mana Prabhutwam) for execution and completion of various works in the Rowthulapudi Village of Rowthulapudi mandal, 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 4th respondent. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.11,70,008/-. However, as per the department records, the total value of the work done is Rs.11,70,008/- and after deducting statutory recoveries of Rs.1,33,157/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.10,36,851/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.10,36,851/-. 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 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”. p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 7. Given the instructions furnished by the 4th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.10,36,851/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty One 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 PVD