APHC010385352024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19634/2024 Between: 1. NEDUNURI SATYAPRASAD, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 3-143, OLD POST OFFICE STREET, KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, GOKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SPECIAL SECRETARY, A.P. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION, PLOT NO 11 AND 12 BEHIND BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, D. NO.12-47, PVS ICON, PATHURU CROSS ROAD, TADEPALLI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, p. 2 VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. THE ADDITIONAL PROGRAMME OFFICER, MGNREGS, GOKAVARAM MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MGNREGS A.P.E.G.DT GOKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAMAPANCHYAT, GOKAVARAM, GOKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 10. A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NIRMAN BHAVAN, PLOT. NO. 11 AND 12, BACKSIDE OF BSNL EXCHANGE, NEAR APIIC COLONY, AUTONAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT, A.P.-520007. R10 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURTS ORDER DT.18.02.2026 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 ...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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents herein not releasing the total bills amount worth of Rs.5,80,542/- (Rupees Five lakhs eighty thousand five hundred and forty two only) with interest @ 12 percent p.a., as per the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court In W.P. No.19525/2021 (W.P. No. 10038/2021 and Batch) dated 05.10.2021 under grant of MGNREGS to the petitioner till today after execution of one work and causing heavy loss with Interest even though the works were completed within time as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the Respondents to release and pay the total bills amount worth of Rs.5,80,542/-(Rupees Five lakhs p. 3 eighty thousand five hundred and forty two only) with Interest under grant of MGNREGS forthwith to the petitioner and 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 and pay the total bills amount worth of Rs.5,80,542/-(Rupees Five lakhs eighty thousand five hundred and forty two only) with Interest under grant of MGNREGS forthwith to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 implead the Proposed Respondent as Respondent No. 10 in the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED) 4. 0 5. 6. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order : Heard M. Narendra Babu, learned counsel representing Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, p. 4 learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for respondents 2 to 7; Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for respondents 8 and 9 and Sri K. Mallikarjuna Moorthy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.10 . 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.5,80,542/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed i.e. „Development of Housing Colony, Gokavaram GP of Gokavaram Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today when the matter is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Project director, DWMA, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a total value of Rs.10,75,296/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after QC recovery/withheld amount of Rs.51,537/-, is Rs.10,23,759/- out of which an amount of Rs.7,54,422/- was already paid and the balance amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.2,69,337/- . 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 there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner‟s entitlement for Rs. 2,69,337/-. 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 p. 5 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 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 Project director, DWMA, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 2,69,337/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Seven 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: 23.03.2026 IKN/JLSR