APHC010396482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20137/2025 Between: 1. SHIVA SHANKAR GARMENTS, MADANANAPALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, P.RAMAKRISHNACHARI, S/O VENKATA RAMACHARI, R/O NEHRU BAZAR, MADANPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, AP GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF RURAL POVERTY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DRDA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, CHITTOOR. 5. THE MADANAPALLE MANDAL MAHILA SAMAKYA, MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OP THIRFT AND CREDIT CO-OP SOCIDETY LIMITED, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to issue Writ one the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the admitted Gross amount of Rs.90,28,758/- due to the petitioner in respect of the works for stitching masks during Covid 19, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to pay the admitted Gross amount of Rs. 90,28,758/- due to the petitioner together with interest till the date of payment 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 to direct the Respondents to pay the admitted Gross amount of Rs. 90,28,758/- due to the petitioner together with interest, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. HARI BABU MAGULURI SC For SERP 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the respondents' failure to release an amount of Rs.90,28,758/- relating to the work executed by the petitioner, i.e., stitching masks during Covid-19, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for the respondents. Page 3 of 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 Chief Executive Officer – respondent No.3. 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 is Rs.90,28,758/-. 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.90,28,758/-. 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.90,28,758/- payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, within six (06) 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: 25.02.2026 TVN p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 204 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20137 of 2025 Date: 25.02.2026 TVN