APHC010453482024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 23424/2024 Between: 1. GANGIREDDYPALEM YELAMANDA REDDY, S/O SUBBA REDDY, AGED 34 YEARS, CONROCTOR R/O D.NO.9-246,PAPIREDDY PALEM, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY PRINICIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PR AND RD DEPARTMENT, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEERLL, ENGINEER IN CHEIF, PANCHAYATH RAJ, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PANCHAYATH RAJ CIRCLE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 to issue writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus by declaring the inaction of the respondents in releasing the Social Audit and Quality Control with held amounts of rupees 11,15,931/- (Eleven Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty one under Social Audit and Quality Control for the execution of Nine (9) works providing graveling and CD roads in Botlapalem Grama Panchayath of Darsi mandal reach-2, Prakasam District under the work ID numbers under MGNREGS grants inspite of the letter no Lr.Rc. No A1/NREGS/2023 dated 05.12.2023 issued by 6th respondent to the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminative and Voilation of Article 14 amd 21 of the Constitution of India and further consequently to direct the respondents to release the with held amounts and further to award interest to the delay in releasing the with held amount and to 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 may be pleased to pass urgents order or orders by directing the 3rd respondent to consider the letter LR. RC .No. A1/NREGS/2023 dated 05.12.2023 issued by the 6th respondent to release the DD Account no: 8443-00-106-02-97-001-VN against our DOO Code No. 07012202074 towards the payment towards the refund of the Social Audit and Quality Control with held amount of rupees 11,15,931/- till pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASULU P Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the Social Audit and Quality Control amount of p. 3 Rs.11,15,931/- in relation to the works executed by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri P. Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, appeared for the respondents. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Ongole – respondent No.6. 4. A perusal of the said instructions indicates that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works. It would further indicate that the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.11,15,931/-, and after payment of Rs.7,96,483/-, the balance amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.3,19,448/- . The written instructions are made as part of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the amount payable to the petitioner as per the written instructions. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.3,19,448/-. 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.”. 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 p. 4 6. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.64, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.3,19,448/- payable to the petitioner regarding the Social Audit and Quality Control in relation to the work executed 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: 23.02.2026 TVN p. 5 273 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 23424 of 2024 Date: 23.02.2026 TVN