APHC010414902023 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: 21407/2023 Between: 1. AMMISETTY SIVA SANKAR RAO,, S/O ROSAIAH, AGED. 67 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. VENKATAKRISHNA PURAM VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NH -16, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DIVISION, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB-DIVISION, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MPP,PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 7. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY- CUM- PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, VENKATAKRISHNAPURAM 2 VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRATARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRATERIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 9. DHULIPALLA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O MALLIKHARJUNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SARPANCH, VENKATA KRISHNAPURAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, PEDA KAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, DT.07.10.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.2 OF 2023. ...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 respondents in not releasing funds with the Measurement Book No. 537/B/PRI/MGNREGS/2019-20 for construction of Grama Sachivalayam in Venkata Krishna Puram Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme(MGNREGS) funds as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the amounts with interest as per the aforesaid Measurement Book Number under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme(MGNREGS), forthwith to the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 amounts payable to the petitioner regarding works executed by the petitioner with the Measurement Book number M.Book No.537/B/PRI/MGNREGS/2019- 20 for construction of Grama Sachivalayam in Venkata Krishna Puram Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme(MGNREGS) funds with the total cost of Rs. 6,41,977/- for the aforesaid works, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 3 implead the Petitioner/Proposed Respondent No.9 as Respondent NO.9 in the Writ Petition No.21407/2023 and to 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner/Respondent No.9 in WP to file counter affidavit in WP 21407 of 2023 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SOURI BABU DUPPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI 4. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order: Heard Sri D.Souri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1 to 6 and 8, Sri Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the 7th respondent and Sri K.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 9th respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount as mentioned in the Measurement Book No.537/B/PRI/MGNREGS/2019-20, for the construction of Grama Sachivalayam in Venkata Krishan Puram Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Development Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The averments, in brief, in the affidavit are that the petitioner supplied the material for the construction of Gram Sachivalayam. The estimated cost of the work is Rs.40 lakhs. The material supplied by the petitioner was recorded 4 in M-Books. The petitioner was also entrusted with the execution of the works worth Rs.6,41,977/-, and the petitioner partly completed the works. However, the petitioner has not received any amount. The Executive Engineer, Deputy Engineer and Assistant Engineer inspected the work and issued M-Books. The petitioner approached the respondents on several occasions to release the amount. However, the amount was not released. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The 6th respondent filed counter affidavit and an additional counter- affidavit, contending, inter alia, that the District Collector and the District Programme Coordinator, Guntur, had issued an administrative sanction for the construction of the Gram Sachivalayam building vide Work ID.No.077042703002090023, vide proceedings Rc.No.1282/2019 dated 12.11.2019. The estimated cost was technically sanctioned by the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Guntur, issued by the work order on 09.01.2020, based on the resolution of the Gram Panchayat Special Officer, Venkata Krishnapuram, vide Resolution No.2 dated 20.11.2019. The required material for the work was provided by the petitioner. The amount was adjusted to the Gram Panchayat, Venkata Krishna Puram, through FTO No.8070421002244 dated 05.06.2021 for Rs.2,97,064/- and FTO No.0121EATPAYREQ 0404420230268 dated 04.04.2023 for Rs.3,44,913/- totalling an amount of Rs.6,41,977/-. 5. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat filed W.P.No.28701 of 2021, and the same was disposed of on 21.10.2022. In compliance with the orders in W.P.No.28701 of 2021, the respondents are executing the construction of the Gram Sachivalayam building, Rythu Barosa Kendram and YSR Health Clinic by the Gram Panchayat only. Prior to the filing of this writ petition, the petitioner supplied the required material for the construction of the Gram Sachivalayam building till the basement level of Rs.6,41,977/-. 6. The 9th respondent filed a separate counter-affidavit, contending, inter alia, that he was elected as the Sarpanch and took oath as Sarpanch on 5 03.04.2021, though the District Collector accorded administrative sanction for the construction of Gram Sachivalayam. However, the work was not commenced since there is an objection to the Gram Panchayat regarding the place identified by the official respondents. He received a notice vide No.01/MGNREGS/Guntur/2021 dated 24.09.2021 from the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Guntur, to start the works mentioned in the notice, including the Gram Sachivalayam building and report in a week through the Mandal Engineer. The Gram Panchayat is competent to execute MGNREGS works. When some unauthorised persons started the work and the officials failed to act upon the complaints made by the 9th respondent, he filed W.P.No.28701 of 2021 and the same was disposed of on 21.10.2022, directing the respondent authorities to conduct Gram Sabha as per Section 6 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 in compliance of Section 16 of the MGNREGS Act 2005, The order of status-quo was granted on 16.08.2022 continued till disposal of the writ petition. The petitioner is not concerned with the construction of the building. The receipts filed by the petitioner are fabricated and in collusion with the then individual officers. 7. A separate counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 6th respondent. The petitioner, without having any authority and permission from the competent authority, tried to make constructions, and the same are nothing but illegal and irregular and hence the petitioner is not entitled to any amount and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 6 and 8, and learned counsel for the 9th respondent, reiterated the contents as per the averments in the affidavit and in their respective counter-affidavits. 9. The Point for consideration is: Whether a Mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.6,41,977/-, claimed by the petitioner regarding the 6 construction of Gram Sachivalayam in Venkata Krishna Puram, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District. 10. In the affidavit, the petitioner did not specify any authorisation to the petitioner to make the construction of the Gram Sachivalayam. Various receipts filed by the petitioner as Ex.P2 did not demonstrate or support the payment allegedly made by the petitioner. The resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat vide Resolution No.2 dated 20.11.2019, passed by the Gram Panchayat, does not indicate the allotment of work to the petitioner to construct the building. 11. A perusal of the resolution filed along with the additional counter- affidavit filed by the 6th respondent would indicate that the Gram Panchayat resolved to construct a building under the MGNREGS Scheme. After the resolution, the Executive Engineer sent a communication dated 09.01.2020 to the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to commence the work. Neither the M-Book (Ex.P1) nor the receipts filed by the petitioner (Ex.P2) disclose the name of the petitioner concerning the construction of Gram Sachivalayam. In fact, the receipts filed by the petitioner Ex.P2 are worth Rs.10,31,756/-. However, the petitioner is claiming Rs.6,41,977/-. As pointed out supra, Ex.P2, receipts do not contain any acknowledgement of payment and do not disclose the amount allegedly paid by the petitioner towards the purchase of materials. 12. In view of the counter-affidavit filed by the 6th respondent in September 2023, it was pleaded that the petitioner provided material worth Rs.6,41,977/-. In the additional counter-affidavit filed in December, 2025, it was improved and further pleaded that the petitioner executed the work. This inconsistency itself creates an amount of doubt regarding the work executed by the petitioner. While disposing of the W.P.No.28701 of 2021, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court observed as follows: “In view of the foregoing discussion, the construction of Grama Sachivalayam building cannot be allowed by any other persons except 7 the Gram Pancahayt. Therefore, the respondent authorities are directed to conduct Grama Sabha as per Section 6 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 in compliance of Section 16 of the MGNREG Act and after approval of the works under the MGNREG Scheme as envisaged under Section 16 of the MGNREG Act, 2005, the construction of Gram Sachivalayam building shall be commenced by the 11th respondent-Gram Panchayat only. Till then, no construction of Gram Sachivalayam as well as other works under MGNREG Scheme shall be commenced.” 13. Normally, this Court will not adjudicate the disputed questions of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam1, reported in has held asunder: “26. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable." 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies International Inc v. Union of India2, observed as follows: “69. The position thus summarized in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, 'normally', the Court would not exercise such a discretion: (a) the Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562 2 2015 (7) SCC 728 8 (b) Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said made of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration. (c) If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. (d) Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.” 16. In the case at hand, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he executed the works. In fact, the bills filed along with the writ petition and the amount claimed do not tally. No material also placed that the petitioner executed the works. The averments in the counter affidavit vis-à-vis execution of work by the petitioner do not inspire confidence, given the discussion supra. 17. Given the facts and circumstances and the discussion supra, there are serious disputes regarding the supply of material by the petitioner as well as the execution of the work, in the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the competent Civil Court claiming the amount. The observations, if any, do not influence the Civil Court. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated:01.04.2026 SNI 9 209 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.21407 OF 2023 Dated:01.04.2026 SNI