APHC010287732023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14777/2023 Between: 1. MADDUKURI DHANARAJU, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC.. CONTRACTOR, R/O. NAVABPALEMVILLAGE, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NH -16, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MPP, TADEPALLIGUDEM. 6. THE NAVABPALEM GRAMA PANCHAYATI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NAVABPALEM, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DIST. 2 ...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 an appropriate writ or order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in not releasing QC (Quality Control) and SA (Social Audit) withheld amounts of Rs.3,94,799/- which was deducted by the respondents at the time of releasing of bill payments in their respective bills of 7 works Covered by MGNREGS Grant executed by me for construction of Gramapanchayati building of Navabpalem, CC Roads/side drains and various construction of building works in Navabpalem Village, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, vide its work ID Nos.1). 057041822013080011, QC withheld amount of Rs.72,035/- and SA (social Audit) amount of Rs.72,035/- 2). 057041822013080010, QC and SA amount of Rs.77,419/-, 3). 057041822013090022, QC and SA amount of Rs.32,368/-, 4). 057041822013090022, QC and SA amount of Rs.62,747/-, 5) M.B.No.22/B/PR/ELR/16-17, QC and SA amount of Rs.26,031/- 6) M.B No.39/B/PR/ELR/2016-17 QC and SA amount of Rs.26,121/- and 7) M.B.No.38/13/PR/ELR/2016-17 QC and SA amount of Rs.26,043/- respectively, which is illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Panchayati Raj Act rules framed there under, consequently direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.3,94,799/- to the petitioner with the interest of 18percent immediately and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 the withheld amounts of Rs.3,94,799/- immediately, which was deducted by the respondent authorities in their respective bills of 7 works at the time of release of bills payment as QC and SA (social audit) payments Covered by MGNREGS Grant executed by the petitioner for construction of Gramapanchayati building of Navabpalem, CC Roads/side drains and various construction of building works in Navabpalem Village, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri M.Prasad Babu, learned counsel representing Sri Siva Sankara Rao Borra, 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 to 4 and Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel appeared for the respondents 5 and 6. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the quality control and social audit withheld amounts of Rs.3,94,799/-, which was deducted by the respondents at the time of releasing of bill payments in respect of seven works covered by MGNREGS Grant executed in relation to the construction of Gram Panchayat building of Navabpalem, CC Roads/Side drains and various building works in Navabpalem Village, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted instructions of the 4 Executive Engineer, PR (PIU) Division, Bhimavaram -4th respondent dated 29.12.2025, wherein it is stated as follows: <Submitted that, there is no delay of submission of bill by this office and whenever the Government permits to upload the bill in MCC Portal, an amount of Rs.3,73,967/- towards release of withheld amounts of Social Audit and Quality Control will be paid to the petitioner.= 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.3,73,967/-. 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 work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.3,73,967/-. 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.= 7. Given the instructions furnished by the 4th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.3,73,967/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Seven only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, 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: 10.02.2026 SNI 6 151 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14777 OF 2023 Date: 10.02.2026 SNI