APHC010363692025 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: 18553 OF 2025 Between: 1. KOLLALA MADHU SUDHANARAO, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, R/O, D/N0.3-147-A, MANDAPAKALA VILLAGE, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R.I DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM, MACHILIPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R.I SUB-DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM MANDAL MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R.I SUB-DIVISION, AVANIGADDA, MACHILIPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 7. THEASSISTANTEXECUTIVEENGINEER, P.R.I SUB-DIVISION, MANDAL PARSHAD, MOPIDEVI MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VARDHINEEDI SAI KIRAN 2 SRS, J W.P.No.18553 of 2025 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Vardhineedi Sai Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for respondents 1, 2, 4 to 7 and Smt. Vijayasree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the 3rd respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the bill amount of Rs.11,58,457/- in relation to three works executed by the petitioner i.e., (1) C.C. Road from Karra Nancharamma House to Tumma Leela Krishna House in Annavaram Venkatapuram Village of Mopidevi Mandal vide R.c.No.AE2/GGMP/2023, dated 20.10.2023, for estimated cost of Rs.2,20,000/- and the work done by the petitioner for Net Amount of Rs.2,19,120/- (2) C.C. Road from Tumma Mukharji House to Karra Nancharamma House in Annaravaram H/o Venkatapuram Village of Mopidevi Mandal vide R.c.No.AE2/GGMP/2023, dated 20.10.2023, for estimate cost of Rs.5,00,000/- and the work done by the petitioner for Net Amount of Rs.4,99,364/- (3) C.C. Road from Tumma Chandra Shekar House to Ankammatalli Temple in Annaravaram H/o Venkatapuram Village of Mopidevi Mandal vide R.c.No.AE2/GGMP/2023, dated 20.10.2023, for estimate cost of Rs.4,41,000/- and the work done by the 3 SRS, J W.P.No.18553 of 2025 petitioner for Net Amount of Rs.4,39,973/- the total amount of Rs.11,58,457/-, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of Executive Engineer PRI Division, Machilipatnam - respondent No.4 dated 20.01.2026. 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.10,30,623/-. 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 submitted by the Executive Engineer PRI Division, Machilipatnam - respondent No.4, there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.10,30,623/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 4 SRS, J W.P.No.18553 of 2025 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 respondent No.4, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release/pay an amount of Rs.10,30,623/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Thirty Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Three only) payable to the petitioner regarding the 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: 21.01.2026 BSK 5 SRS, J W.P.No.18553 of 2025 382 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18553 OF 2025 Date: 21.01.2026 BSK