Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22729 (AP)

YEDDU BABJI v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/19447/2024 · 2026-03-04

Subba Reddy Satti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010382802024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19447/2024 Between: 1. YEDDU BABJI, S/O. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 4-103, HARIJANA PETA, PERAVALI MANDAL, AJJARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-534331 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINNANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, R.W.S.AND.S, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OFFICE AT NAKKAL ROAD, SURYARAO PETA, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (R.W.S.AND.S) RAJAMAHENDRVARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R.W.S.AND .S DIVISION, RAJAMAHENDRVARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY DISTRICT. 6. THE SUPENDENT ENGINEER, R.W.S.AND .S DIVISION, RAJAMAHENDRVARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY DISTRICT p. 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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not releasing the Withheld amount of total pending of Rs. 8,68,542/- in Agreement dated 30.05.2023 parts I and Supply-Agreement dated 19.04.2024 Part II vide M.Book No.912/B/2021-22 for which the work Providing permanent water supply and Filter House Treatment Centers (FHTCs) to near Kondalamma Temple layout ID 053008I_A112162 in Ajjaram Gram Panchayat (GP) of Peravali Mandal, under JJM(JHC) Grant, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Articles 14, 16, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to release the pending amount of Rs.8,68,542/- and to 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 pleased to direct the respondents to release the pending amount pass order for Rs.8,68,542 vide M. Book No. 912/B/2021-22, for the material cost and the labour supplied by the petitioner for Providing permanent water supply and Filter House Treatment Centers (FHTCs) to Kondalamma Temple layout ID 053008LA112162 in Ajjaram Gram Panchayat (GP) of Peravali Mandal, under JJM(JHC) Grant in Ajjaram Grampanchayat of peravali Mandal of East Godavari District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA 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 Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Annamneedi Balakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh p. 3 Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the Withheld amount of Rs.8,68,542/- in relating to Providing permanent water supply and Filter House Treatment Centers (FHTCs) to near Kondalamma Temple layout, Ajjaram Gram Panchayat (GP) of Peravali Mandal, under JJM(JHC) Grant, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending the writ petition, the petitioner completed the entire work and the petitioner is entitled for a total amount of Rs.11,13,974/- and in the writ petition, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.8,68,542/-. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the 5th respondent-Executive Engineer RWS&S Division, Rajamahendravaram. 5. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.8,68,542/-, while the work is in progress and later the work was completed and final bill for gross amount of Rs.12,12,940/- was submitted and out of which, net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.11,13,974/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. 7. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.11,13,974/-. 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: p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 “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.”. 6. Given the instructions furnished by the 5th respondent, though there is a small variation in the amount claimed by the petitioner and the amount determined by the official, as payable to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.11,13,974/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Four 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 PVD