APHC010294672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14730/2025 Between: 1. M/S SRI UMAMAHESWARA CONSTRUCTIONS,, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SADULA SRIKANTH REDDY, S/O SADULA PEDDA VENGALA REDDY, AGE 46 YEARS, R/O.F.NO.202, VARA PRADHA MANSION APARTMENT, BEHIND MONTESSORI SCHOOL, A CAMP, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL AND CO OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. Page 2 of 6 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYATI RAJ CIRCLE, KURNOOL KURNOOL DISTRICT. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION,KURNOOL. KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount for the 6 road works executed by the petitioner under the Grant APAM (AMC) PACKAGE NO.APAM/KRNL/Panyam/09, Consisting of 7 Road Works in Panyam constituency of Kurnool District through the Agreement No. /2022-23 dated 26.07.2022, the works for (i)Providing BT Renewals to the road from 11/4 of T04 to Peddakottala via K.Markapuram of Kallur Mandal for amount of Rs.40,08,363/-. (ii)Providing BT Renewals to the road from NH18 to Uppalapadu via Guttapadu, N.Konthalapadu in Orvakal(M) for an amount of Rs. 19,51,602/-, (iii)Providing BT Renewals to the road from NH18 to meet Betamcherla Road via Komarolu in Orvakal(M for an amount of Rs.34,50,851/-, (iv) Providing BT Renewals to the road from NH-45 to Oddugandia in Panyam (M) for an amount of Rs.8,29,960/-, (v) Providing BT Renewals to the road from Gadivemula to Regadagudur upto mandal limit in Gadivemula(M) for an amount of Rs. 19,48,467/-, (vi) Providing BT Renewals to the road from Gani to Pybagula via L.K.Thanda in Gadivemula(M) for an amount of Rs. 22,69,854/- for a total amount of Rs. 1,44,59,097/-, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and un constitution and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs. 1,44,59,097/- with 18percent Per annum to the petitioner in respect of the execution of aforementioned work 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 may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the bill amount of Rs. 1,44,59,097/- with interest at 18% for the 6 road works executed by the petitioner under the Grant APAM (AMC) “PACKAGE NO.APAM/KRNL/Panyam/09, Consisting of 7 Road Works in Panyam constituency of Kurnool District” through the Agreement No. 12022-23 dated: p. 3 26.07.2022, the works for (i)Providing BT Renewals to the road from 11/4 of T04 to Peddakottala via K.Markapuram of Kallur Mandal for an amount of Rs.40,08,363/-, (ii)Providing BT Renewals to the road from NH18 to Uppalapadu via Guttapadu, N.Konthalapadu in Orvakal(M) for an amount of Rs. 19,51,602/-, (iii)Providing BT Renewals to the road from NH18 to meet Betamcherla Road via Komarolu in Orvakal(M for an amount of Rs.34,50,851/-, (iv) Providing BT Renewals to the road from NH-45 to Oddugandia in Panyam (M) for an amount of Rs.8,29,960/-, (v) Providing BT Renewals to the road from Gadivemula to Regadagudur upto mandal limit in Gadivemula(M) for an amount of Rs. 19,48,467/-, (vi) Providing BT Renewals to the road from Gani to Pybagula via L.K.Thanda in Gadivemula(M) for an amount of Rs. 22,69,854/-, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR AGRICULTURE 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.1,44,59,097/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the works executed by the petitioner vide Package No.APAM/KRNL/Panyam/09, dated 26.07.2022, consisting of 7 road works in Panyam Constituency of Kurnool District, is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Venkatesh, learned counsel representing Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for the respondents 1, 2, 5 to 7, and Ms. M. Sadya Deepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture, appeared for respondents 3 & 4. Page 4 of 6 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.5 has called for tenders for the execution of the aforementioned works. The petitioner emerged as the successful bidder, and an agreement was entered into vide No.Nil/2022-2023, dated 26.07.2022. The petitioner has completed the work; however, the respondents failed to release the amount. 4. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.7. In para No.6, it was pleaded that the Executive Engineer records M-book and passed the order dated 02.11.2024, 12.11.2024 and 13.11.2024 concerning Agreement No.Nil/2022-23, dated 26.07.2022 for the Gross amount of Rs.1,54,64,669/-. After statutory deductions and Q.C. recoveries of Rs.11,04,468/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.1,43,60,201/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not refute the averments made in the counter-affidavit vis-à-vis the amount mentioned therein. 6. Thus, as seen from the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.7, there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.1,43,60,201/-. 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 averments made in the counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.7, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to p. 5 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 release an amount of Rs.1,43,60,201/- payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, within six (06) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. With respect to the interest claimed, the petitioner has to approach the appropriate forum. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 11.03.2026 TVN p. 6 235 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14730 of 2025 Date: 11.03.2026 TVN