APHC010278092024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 13997 OF 2024 Between: 1. KOLLI MURALI KRISHNA, S/O. CHAKRAPANI, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC- CONTRACTOR, R/O D. NO. 2-108, MOPIDEVI VILLAGE AND MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR DIVISION, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 5. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB-DIVISION, REPALLE, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 6. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, NIZAMPATNAM, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 SRS, J W.P.No.13997 of 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY 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. G.Arthi, learned counsel representing Sri K.V.Aditya Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning, appeared for the respondents 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and Ms. Vijaya Sree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for the 3rd respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of Rs.35,57,083/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Eighty Three only), payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., 1) providing internal CC road from Mee Seva center to old police station in Nizampatnam-4 Sachivalayam of Nizampatnam Mandal 2) providing internal CC road from Godavathi Srinivas House to barri venkata Rao (H) Nizampatnam-2 Sachivalayam of Nizampatnam Mandal vide Proc.Rc.No.64/D1/GGMP/Repalle/AC/2022 dated 05.08.2023 of District Collector and Magistrate, Bapatla. The Quality Control team inspected the works on 09.03.2024 and submitted a report on 13.03.2024. Despite the completion of the work, the amount was not released to the petitioner. 3 SRS, J W.P.No.13997 of 2024 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of Executive Engineer, PR (PIU) Division, Bapatla-4th respondent dated 11.12.2025. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.35,57,083/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions submitted by the Executive Engineer, PR (PIU) Division, Bapatla-4th respondent, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement. Since there is no dispute regarding the petitioner’s entitlement and the amount payable to the petitioner is undisputed and admitted, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 4 SRS, J W.P.No.13997 of 2024 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 facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release/pay an amount of Rs.35,57,083/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Eighty Three only) to the petitioner regarding the execution of the aforementioned work, within a period of four (04) 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: 21.01.2026 BSK 5 SRS, J W.P.No.13997 of 2024 372 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 13997 OF 2024 Date: 21.01.2026 BSK