APHC010298092023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15369/2023 Between: 1. THOPA NEERAPPA, S/O ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 68YEARS, R/O KANAKANAPALLI, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, SATYA SAI/ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SUPERINDENT ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DIVISION, SATYA SAI/ ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DIVISION, PENUKONDA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. GRAMPANCHAYATH ALADAPALLI, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, SATYA SAI/ ANANTA.PUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents withholding the payment of final bill amount of rupees 2,92,112,/- rupees 5,71,800/-, rupees1,53,801/, 2,93,796/-, 4,24,030/- in respect of work even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner for the year 2018-2019 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the final bill amount of rupees 2,92,112,/- rupees 5,71,800/-, rupees1,53,801/, rupees 2,93,796/-,rupees 4,24,030/- to the petitioner in respect of work and to 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GUMMADAVALLI VAMSI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order: Heard Sri G.Vamsi Kumar, 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, 3 and 5 and Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.17,35,539/- (Rs.2,92,112/- + 3 Rs.5,71,800/- + Rs.1,53,801/- + Rs.2,93,796/- + Rs.4,24,030/-), payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., i) Providing CC road from Chakali Narasimhappa house to Hanumantha Chari house at Aldapalli Village of Amarapuram Mandal vide MB.No.367/CZPP/16-17, ii) Providing CC road from U.Jaganatha house to Hanumakka house at Aldapalli Village of Amarapuram Mandal vide MB.No.368/CZPP/16-17, iii) Providing Cc road from Magalla house to Kempanna house at Aladappli Village of Amarapuram Mandal vide MB.No.178/BZPP/16-17, iv) Providing CC road from K.Gujjarappa house to Golla Govindappa house at Aladapalli Village of Amarapuram Mandal vide MB.No.275/CZPP/16-17 and v) Providing CC road from Kariyamma Devasthnam to Kapu Varalakshmi house at Aladapalli Village of Amarapuram Mandal vide MB.No.745/BZPP/17-18. Despite the completion of the works, the amount was not released to the petitioner. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Penukonda -3rd respondent dated 24.11.2025. 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 after statutory deductions is Rs.13,00,056/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. 4 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.13,00,056/-. 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.” 7. Given the instructions furnished by the 3rd respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.13,00,056/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Fifty Six 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 Date: 04.02.2026 SNI 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 264 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15369 OF 2023 Date: 04.02.2026 SNI