APHC010285212024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14338/2024 Between: 1. CHERUKURI SATYA VARA PRASAD RAJU, S/O. VENKATA SATYA NARASIMHA RAJU, AGED 31 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR AND MATERIAL SUPPLIER, R/O. H.NO. 3-37/1, RAJULAPALEM, SEETHARAMAPURAM VILLAGE, NARASAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THULLUR MANDAL, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THULLUR MANDAL, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NH-16, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, 2ND FLOOR, SP RIVER VIEW BUILDING, TADEPALLI, AMARAVATI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, p. 2 BHIMAVARAM. 6. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 7. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 8. THE DISTRICT HEADHOUSING, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 9. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, , A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM 10. THE DIVISION HEAD HOUSING AND DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, , HOUSING, NARASAPURAM DIVISION, NARASAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 11. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ ADDITIONAL DISTRICT PROGRAM COORDINATOR, MGNREGS, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 12. THE ADDITIONAL PROGRAM OFFICER MGNREGS, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 13. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MPDO, NAIRASAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 14. THE EXTENSION OFFICER PR AND RD, NARASAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 15. THE RUSTUMBADA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER- CUM-EXTENSION OFFICER, UNDER MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE (MGNREG) SCHEME, NARASAPURAMMANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 16. THE SEETHARAMAPURAM SOUTH GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER- CUM-EXTENSION OFFICER, UNDER MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE (MGNREG) SCHEME, NARASAPURAMMANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 3 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, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of contract works vide i) Layout ID No. 058601 LA 112090 in respect of work ID No. 050594511012170331 for withheld an amount of Rs.8,67,862/-, ii) Layout ID No. 05860 ILAl 12090 in respect of Work ID No. 050594511012170333 for an amount of Rs. 13,17,202/- and withheld amount of Rs. 6,06,764/- and hi) Layout ID No. 05860ILAl 12093 in respect of work ID No. 050594514013170516 for an amount of Rs. 1,80,522/- totaling an amount of Rs. 29,72,350/- respectively, for material supplied by the Petitioner and also works executed by the Petitioner for Development of Housing Colony in Rustumbada and Seetharamapuram South Villages of Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and consequently direct the respondents to comply with the above mentioned FTRs and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 1 to 3 to release the funds through a proper channel into the account of respondent Nos. 15 and 16 or any other concerned forthwith, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. E V JAGANNADHA RAO (SC FOR AP STATE HOUSEING COOP LTD) 3. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 4. MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED) 5. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING p. 4 The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.29,72,350/- relating to the work executed by the petitioner vide (i) Layout ID No.058601LA112090 in respect of work ID.No.050594511012170331 for an amount of Rs.8,67,862/-, (ii) Layout ID No.058601LA112090 in respect of work ID.No. 050594511012170333 for an amount of Rs.13,17,202/- and withheld amount of Rs.6,06,764/- and (iii) Layout ID No.058601LA11293 in respect of work ID. No.050594514013170516 for an amount of Rs.1,80,522/-, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel submitted the written instructions of the Project Director, DWMA, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram – respondent No.11. 4. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.29,46,764/-. 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.”. 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 p. 5 5. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.11, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.29,46,764/- payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, 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: 23.02.2026 TVN p. 6 306 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14338 of 2024 Date: 23.02.2026 TVN