Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22790 (AP)

K VENKATA RAMANAIAH v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/19372/2025 · 2026-03-12

Subba Reddy Satti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010377852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19372/2025 Between: 1. K VENKATA RAMANAIAH, S/O.K VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATOR, R/O. KODANDA RAMAPURAM, MANUBOLU, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.20.08.2025 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2025. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MANUBOLU GRAM PANCHAYAT, MANUBOLU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents not releasing the withheld amount as Rs.2,33,560/- vide M Book No. 421-B/2012 B, even after completion of defect liability period, refund payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Construction of Bharat Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra (BNRGSK) building at Manubolu, Manubolu Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, vide Work Id No. 097073111012090010 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the withheld amounts as Rs.2,33,560/- vide M Book No. 421- B/2012 B, to the petitioner in respect of above-mentioned work forthwith and 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 please to direct the respondents to release the withheld amounts as Rs.2,33,560/- vide M Book No. 421-B/2012 B, to the petitioner in respect of works i.e., Construction of Bharat Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra (BNRGSK) building at Manubolu, Manubolu Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, vide Work Id No. 097073111012090010, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased amend cause title of the Petitioner as K Venkata Ramanaiah, S/o.K Venhataswamy, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Cultivator, R/o. Kodanda Ramapuram, Manubolu, SPSR Nellore District‟ instead of “N Venkata Ramanaiah, S/o.N Venkataswamy, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Cultivator, R/o. Kodanda Ramapuram, Manubolu, SPSR Nellore District‟ in the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MODAPOTHULA SUMALATHA p. 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order : Heard Ms. D. Madhavi, learned counsel representing Smt. Modapothula Sumalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for respondents 2 to 4 and Sri M. Sudhir, learned standing counsel for respondent No.5. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.2,33,560/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. „Construction of Bharat Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra building at Manubolu, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District vide work I.D.No.097073111012090010, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today when the matter is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Nellore. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a total value of Rs.31,86,844/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after the deductions / recovery of Rs.1,92,101/-, is Rs.29,94,743/- out of which an amount of Rs.29,19,743/- was paid. The balance amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.75,000/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. Page 4 of 4 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner‟s entitlement for Rs.75,000/-. 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 Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Nellore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of 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: 13.03.2026 IKN 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400