APHC010427222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 22258/2025 Between: 1. P VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY, S/O. P. SHANKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. FLAT.NO. 206, BHADRISETTI APARTMENTS, BALAJI COMPLEX, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND ACCOUNT OFFICER, ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 5. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OFFICE AT NAKKAL ROAD, SURYARAO PETA, VIJAYAWADA. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. Page 2 of 4 7. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB-DIVISION, NANDYAL, NANDYAL 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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the total final bills amount worth of Rs. 33,75,020/- vide its procedgs.Rc.No. 114/GGMP/ Guivemula/DYSO (1)/2022 dated 27.09.2023 1) for Rs. 4,95,876/- vide M.Book.No. 0417-B for the work of Providing CC Road and CC open drainage system from Garitagari Nagaiah house to Pasula Obulesh house at Gadivemula-2 village of Gadivemula Mandal Nandyal District, 2) Rs. 4,85,813/- vide M.Book.No. 0415-B for the work of Providing CC Road and CC open drainage system from Conductor Anif house to BVR College at Gadivemula-1 village of Gadivemula Mandal Nandyal District, 3) Rs. 4,96,586/- vide M.Book.No. 0417-B for the work of Providing CC Road and CC open drainage system from Valmiki Temple to Thalari Pedda Macherla house at Gadivemula-2 village of Gadivemula Mandal Nandyal District, 4) Rs. 4,25,038/- vide M.Book.No. 0419-B for the work of Providing CC Road and CC open drainage system from Aladdin house to Opp Masidu at Gadivemula- 2 village of Gadivemula Mandal Nandyal District 5) Rs. 4,85,966/- vide M.Book.No. 0415-B for the work of Providing CC Road and CC open drainage system from Prabhakar Reddy shop to Opp Conductor Mohammed Anief house at Gadivemula-1 village of Gadivemula Mandal Nandyal District 6) Rs. 4,97,671/- vide M.Book.No. 0418-B for the work of Providing CC Road and CC open drainage system from Kommu Pullamma house to Banala Sundhar Raju house at Gadivemula-1 village of Gadivemula Mandal Nandyal District 7) Rs. 4,88,070/- vide M.Book.No. 0418-B for the work of Providing CC Road and CC open drainage system from CSI Church to ABM Church at Gadivemula-1 village of Gadivemula Mandal Nandyal District and above (07) works was sanction under Gadapa Gadapaku Mana Prabhutvam (GGMP) under Panchayata Raj Department through the Agreements ,as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release the pending bills total amount of Rs. 33,75,020/- with interest at 18 percent for the pending bills forthwith for the above said works executed by the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 p. 3 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 respondents to consider for pending bills of Rs. 33,75,020/- with interest @ 18% for the works executed by the petitioner for the various works under Gadapa Gadapaku Mana Prabhutvam (GGMP) Grant, in Gadivemula Mandal Nandyal District under Panchayat Raj Department through the Agreements forthwith, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA 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 Annamneedi Balakrishna, 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 total final bills amount worth of Rs.33,75,020/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the above referred seven works, 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 6th respondent. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and out of the total value of the work done i.e. Rs.34,35,020/-, after deducting statutory recoveries of Rs.3,85,524/-, p. 4 the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.30,49,496/- (Rs.4,38,065/- + Rs.4,32,550/- + Rs.4,38,377/- + Rs.4,31,620/- + Rs.4,32,466/- + Rs.4,42,908/- + Rs.4,33,510/-). 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 works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.30,49,496/-. 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 6th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.30,49,496/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Six 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400