APHC010447242024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 23043/2024 Between: 1. KOVVURI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA REDDY, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC-CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO. 1-361, ANIKAMMA TEMPLE, UBALANKA VILLAGE, RAVULAPALEM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THULLUR MANDAL, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NH-16, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, PANCHAYAT RAJ, Z.P.COMPOUND, OPPOSITE TO PWD GROUNDS, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND ACCOUNT OFFICER, NIDHI BHAVAN, MANGALAGIRI IT PARK, BEHIND APIIC BUILDING, 2 MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM. 7. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ CIRCLE, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 8. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ (PR) PIU DIVISION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI 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 or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of balance of Rs. 3,09,12,065/- even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioners in relation to the works i.e.. Package No. APAM/EG/Rajanagaram/04 of East Godavari District consists of 2 works Est cost of Rs. 316.32 lakhs of total length 10.32 Km (1) Katavaram to Kunavaram of Seethanagaram Mandal est cost Rs. 152.75 lakhs (2) Bobbilanka to Butchempeta of Seethanagaram Mandal Est cost Rs. 163.57 lakhs through the Agreement No. 18/2023- 24, dated 20-02-2024 for an amount of Rs. 3,09,12,065/- as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of amount of Rs. 3,09,12,065/- forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 amount of Rs. 3,09,12,065/- to the petitioner in respect of execution of work i.e.. Package No. APAM/EG/Rajanagaram/04 of East Godavari District consists of 2 works Est cost of Rs. 316.32 lakhs of total length 10.32 Km (1) Katavaram to Kunavaram of Seethanagaram Mandal est cost Rs. 152.75 lakhs (2) Bobbilanka to Butchempeta of Seethanagaram Mandal Est cost Rs. 163.57 lakhs through the Agreement No. 18/2023-24, dated 20-02- 2024 for an amount of Rs. 3,09,12,065/- forthwith pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to receive the counter affidavit copies on-record by allowing the leave petition in the writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI 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 Rambau Koppineedi, 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 withholding the payment of balance of Rs.3,09,12,065/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Package No. APAM/EG/Rajanagaram/04 of East Godavari District consists of two works of total length 10.32 Km i) Katavaram to Kunavaram of Seethanagaram Mandal and ii) Bobbilanka to Butchempeta of Seethanagaram Mandal, vide Agreement No.18/2023-24, dated 20-02-2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the 7th respondent entered into an agreement vide Agreement No.8/2023-24, 4 dated 20-02-2024 to execute the work. Thereafter, the petitioner executed the work. However, the respondents failed to release the amount. 4. The 8th respondent filed a counter-affidavit. In para-5, it was stated as follows: “I humbly submit that after completion of the work within time the pass order was made for Rs.3,07,70,991/- after deducting the recoveries and of Rs.24,54,208/- and QC Recovery of Rs.70,148/- and therefore the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.2,82,46,635/-. The authorities made submitted the completion report for payment to the Government but the amount was not released.” 5. Thus, as seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the 8th respondent, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.2,82,46,635/-. 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence”. 6. Given the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,82,46,635/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Two Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Five only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within six (06) 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: 12.03.2026 SNI 6 262 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 23043 OF 2024 Date: 12.03.2026 SNI