APHC010403652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20772/2025 Between: 1. YENDURI PULLAIAH, S/O MACHARLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, D.NO.40-5-19/3, KADAMBARI APARTMENTS, TIKKLE ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NTR DISTRICT AT VIJAYAWADA 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PR CIRCLE, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA 5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR 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 OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein, in withholding the payment of 1st and Final Bill Net p. 2 Amount of Rs.51,41,539/- (Gross. Rs.58,25,091/-), even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., 'Construction of CC road to IT Road to Kawuluru Village of G. Konduru Mandal Est.Rs.60.00 Lakhs vide Agreement No. /2023-24, Dt.21.02.2024' is questioned, as the same is illegal and arbitrary apart from violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 86 300-A of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of 1st and Final Bill Net Amount of Rs.51,41,539/- (Gross.Rs.58,25,091/-) with an interest @24percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work., forthwith 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 consider for payment of and Final Bill Net Amount of Rs.51,41,539/- (Gross: Rs.58,25,091/-) with regard to the completion of work i.e., “Construction of CC road to IT Road to Kawuluru Village of G. Konduru Mandal Est.Rs.60.00 Lakhs vide Agreement No. /2023- 24, Dt.21.02.2024' with an interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 withholding the payment of 1st and Final Bill Net Amount of p. 3 Rs.51,41,539/- (Gross. Rs.58,25,091/-), even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e. 'Construction of CC road to IT Road to Kawuluru Village of G.Konduru Mandal Est.Rs.60.00 Lakhs vide Agreement No. /2023-24, Dt.21.02.2024', as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the 4th respondent. 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 after statutory deductions is Rs.51,41,539/-. 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 works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.51,41,539/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors Vs. 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.”. p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 6. Given the instructions furnished by the 4th respondent, though there is a small variation in the amount claimed by the petitioner and the amount determined by the official, as payable to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.51,41,539/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Nine only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within four (04) 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 PVD