APHC010401602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20598/2025 Between: 1. NIRMAN PROJECT ENGINEERING AND WORKS, D.NO. 16-11-17, BHAVANA RUISHINAGAR, KOTHAPETA VILLAGE, SATTENAPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, BEING REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MUDELA LATCHI REDDY. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, 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, PALNADU DISTRICT, NARASARAOPET. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT (NOW PALNADU). 5. THE THURAKAPALEM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, THURAKAPALEM VILLAGE, MACHAVARAM MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 6. THE JULAKALLU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, JULAKALLU VILLAGE, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, 2 PALNADU 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 or Order or direction more particularly one in the, nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action, things and deeds of Respondents in not paying the contract bill amount to the Petitioner i.e., Rs.39,73,822/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Two Only) in respect of the works for Construction of CC Roads within Thurakapalem Village, Machavaram Mandal and Julakallu Village, Piduguralla Mandal of Palnadu District, which is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against to the Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents to pay the total contract bill amount of Rs.39,73,822/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Two Only) along with interest for the works carried by the Petitioner 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 forthwith to pay the total contract bill amount of Rs.39,73,822/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Two Only) along with interest in respect of works carried by the Petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANIKANTA THOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: 3 ::ORDER :: Heard Sri K.Nirmal Datta, learned counsel representing Sri Manikanta Thota, learned counsel for the petitioner, P. Rajesh 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 paying the amount payable to the petitioner, to a tune of Rs.39,73,822/-, in relation to the works i.e., Construction of CC Roads within Thurakapalem Village, Machavaram Mandal and Julakallu Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Palnadu District, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Narasaraopet – 4th respondent dated 06.12.2025. 4. As seen from the instructions, the total value of the work done by the petitioner in relation to the aforementioned works is Rs.38,83,822/-. After Statutory recovery of Rs.4,68,429/-, the balance amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.34,15,393/-. 5. In reply, Sri Annamneedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, endorses that the amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.34,15,393/-. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions and the submission of learned counsel on either side, there is no dispute regarding the amount of Rs.34,15,393/- payable to the petitioner. Since the amount payable is 4 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 submission of learned counsel on either, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.34,15,393/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Three 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 Date: 24.02.2026 SNI 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 243 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20598 of 2025 Date: 24.02.2026 SNI