APHC010389822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20033/2025 Between: 1. M SANKARA REDDY, S/O LATE M.CHENGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC CHAIRMAN, HWC, GUTTIVARIPALLI GP R/O GURAVARAJUPALLI VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.,-BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, TIRUPATI 4. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, REP BY ITS GURTTIVARIPALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT RENIGUNTA MANDAL, RENIGUNTA TIRUPATI 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, to declare the inaction of the 3rd respondent in releasing the bill amount of 3,15,256/- due and payable to the p. 2 petitioner towards the satisfactory completion of the contract work pursuant to the Nomination basis and preparation of the M. Book recorded and passed for payment on 26-03-2024, vide token No 2023-9012926 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release the amount along with interest, and he to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case... 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 to direct the respondent authorities to forthwith release the amount due and payable to the petitioner pursuant to the M. Book entry dt. 26.03.2024, vide token No 2023-9012926 prepared by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MUNI REDDY PERURU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the bill amount of Rs.3,15,256/- relating to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. completion of incomplete YSR Mahila Bhavan at Pavitra Nagar, Guthivaripalli, GP, Renigunta Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Muni Reddy Peruru, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat p. 3 Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, P.R Division, Tirupati – respondent No.3. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work. It would further indicate that the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.3,49,361/-, and after statutory deductions, i.e. Rs.34,102/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.3,15,256/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.3,15,256/-. 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.=. 6. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.3, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.3,15,256/- payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 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: 11.02.2026 TVN p. 5 303 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20033 of 2025 Date: 11.02.2026 TVN