APHC010400802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20624/2025 Between: 1. CH. DHANA SURYANARAYANA,, C/O CHANDRAM CHINNA APPANNA, AGED 66 YEARS, R/O DR.NO.2-19/1, KODELA VARI STREET, CHANDRAM VARI COMPLEX, ATTILI MANDALAM, PALURU, WEST GODAWARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING OFFICER, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERENTENDING ENGINEER, PR CIRCLE, ELURU, ELURU 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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not releasing the final bills amount of Rs.61,86,21l.73/- to the petitioner for the works executed in pursuance of p. 2 agreements entered into by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide Agreements No. 18 of 2023-24 dated 20.02.2024 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 declaring the action of the respondents more particularly Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not releasing the final bills amount of Rs.61,86,211.73/- to the petitioner for the works executed in pursuance of agreements entered into by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide Agreements No. 18 of 2023-24 dated 20.02.2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SRI HARSHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following order: Heard, Sri G.Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri 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 releasing the amount of Rs.61,86,211.73/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed i.e., Providing road from Rajupthepalli R&B road to Annapanenivarigudem in Lingapalem Mandal in Chintalapudi Constituency of Eluru District, vide Agreement No.18/2023-24 dated 20.02.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PR Division, Nuzvid dated 28.03.2026. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a total value of Rs.61,00,690/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions of p. 3 Rs.7,29,225/-, is Rs.53,71,465/-. 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 the aforementioned work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.53,71,465/-. 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, PR Division, Nuzvid, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.53,71,465/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Five only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of aforementioned work, within five (05) 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: 01.04.2026 SNI p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 210 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20624 of 2025 Date: 01.04.2026 SNI