APHC010454882024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 23430/2024 Between: 1. SRI VIJAYA PADMA CONSTRUCTIONS, REP BY PARTNER SRI P JHON RATNAM, S/O PULLAYYA, AGE 55 YEARS,O/O. H.NO. 2-48/1, MERLAPALEM, ATREYAPURAM (M), EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT- 533237 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, 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 FINNANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OFFICE AT NAKKAL ROAD, SURYARAO PETA, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT RAJ WING) KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, , PR CIRCLE, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB DIVISION, MANDAPETA, KONASEMA DISTRICT. Page 2 of 5 ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the inaction on part of the respondents herein not releasing the total final bills amount worth of Rs. 3,66,214/-, i) Amount of Rs. 36,892/- vide M Book No. 208/B/2016-17 vide Agreement, for which the name of work was Package No./East Godavari District/Rayavaram/06 consists of 11 works-Reparis to damaged BTA/VBM/Gravel roads in 11 roads (length 23.446 km), ii) Amount of Rs. 1,51,243/- vide M. Book No. 166/A/2015-2016 vide Agreement dated 24.11.2017, for which the name of work was Package No. 15/East Godavari District/Mandapeta 15 consists of 7 works - Repairs to damaged BT/WBM/Gravel roads in 7 roads (length 13.74 KM) and iii) Amount of Rs. 1,78,074/- vide M.Book No. 210/B/2016-2017 vide Agreement dated 24.11.2017, for which the name of work was Package No. 14/East Godavari Distgrict/ Kapileswarapuram 14 consists of 12 works - Repairs to damaged BT/WBM/Gravel roads in 12 roads (length 18.27 Km) with interest of execution of completion of APRIs for MRR Grant for 2017-2018 MRR (POT HOLES) as per agreements to the petitioner till today and causing heavy loss with interest even though total works were completed as per the agreements as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16, 21 of Constitution of India 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 releasing the Final Bills of total amount worth of Rs. 3,66,214/-, vide M Book Nos. 208/B/2016-17, 166/A/2015-2016 & 210/B/2016-201 7, for which the name of work of i), ii) & iii) with interest of execution of completion of APRIs for MRR Grant for 2017-2018 MRR (POT HOLES) as per agreements, to the petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV p. 3 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 amount of Rs.3,66,214/- (Rs.36,892/- + Rs.1,51,243/- 6 Rs.1,78,074/-) payable to the petitioner in relation to the works executed by it i.e., 1) package No./East Godavari District/Rayavaram/06 consists of 11 works-repairs to damaged BT/WBM/Gravel roads in 11 roads, 2) Package No.15/East Godavari District/Mandapeta 15 consists of 7 works – repairs to damaged BT/WBM/Gravel roads in 7 roads, and 3) Package No.14/East Godavari District/Kapileswarapuram 14 consists of 12 works – repairs to damaged BT/WBM/Gravel roads in 12 roads with interest of execution of completion of APRIs for MRR Grant for 2017-2018 MRR (POT HOLES), as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Rajamahendravaram – 6th respondent, dated 25.03.2026. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works for a total value of Rs.3,66,214/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions of Rs.22,654/-, is Rs.3,43,560/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. 6. The petitioner has paid a Court Fee of only Rs.100/-, and the petitioner shall pay the deficit Court Fee of Rs.200/- within one week from the receipt of p. 4 the order copy and file a memo to that effect, failing which the Registry will take necessary steps for payment of the deficit Court Fee. 7. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs. 3,43,560/-. 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.” 8. Given the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Rajamahendravaram – 6th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.3,43,560/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of aforementioned work, within two (02) 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: 30.03.2026 SNI p. 5 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 174 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 23430 of 2024 Date: 30.03.2026 SNI