APHC010445392024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 23365/2024 Between: 1. GANDI KOTALOKESH,, S/O.SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.14/122 DOWN STREET,BALAGERI.PEAPULLY, NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT-518221 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, P.R (PIU) NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R (PIU) DIVISION, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R (PIU) DIVISION, NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT 6. THE MANDAL ENGINEERING OFFICER, MPP, NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 2 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the total final bills amount worth of Rs. 18,83,722/- in respect of work Providing Additional Accommodation to MPDO Office (Meeting Hall) in Peapully (V and M) in Nandyal District for an Agreement No. /2023-24, Dated 05-10-2023 vide M. Book No.3217-B for completion of DMF Grantfor above said works till today Bills amounts are not released to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the total final bills amounts worth of Rs.18,83,722/-to the petitioner and pay along with interest forthwith under the grant of DMF Grant 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 pleased to direct the respondents to release the total final bills amounts worth of Rs.18,83,722/-in M. Book No.3217-B to the petitioner and pay along with interest forthwith under the grant of DMF Grant pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOMMA VIJAYA RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order : Heard Sri Komma Vijaya Raj Kumar, 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. Page 3 of 4 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.18,83,722/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. „Providing Additional Accommodation to MPDO Office (Meeting Hall) in Peapully (V & M) in Nandyal District‟, in pursuance of agreement dated 05.10.2023, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today when the matter is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer (FAC), (PR) PIU Division, Nandyal. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a total value of Rs.18,83,722/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory recovery of Rs.1,29,917/-, is Rs.17,53,805/-. 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.17,53,805/-. 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.” p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 7. Given the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer (FAC), (PR) PIU Division, Nandyal, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.17,53,805/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Five only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of aforementioned work, within three (03) 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: 16.03.2026 IKN