APHC010460952024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 23749/2024 Between: 1. SHAIK KADIYALA JOHN,, S/O CHINNA MASTAN, AGED 60 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO. 12-39, CHINNA BAVI CENTER, GURAZALA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT (NOW PALNADU). ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ CIRCLE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT (NOW PALNADU). 5. THE ASSISTANT PAY AND ACCOUNTS, LINGAMGUNTIA, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT (NOW PALNADU). 6. THE MADUGULA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MADUGULA VILLAGE, GURAZALA MANDAL, 2 GUNTUR DISTRICT (NOW PALNADU). ...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 or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action, things and deeds of Respondents in not paying the contract bill amount to the Petitioner i.e., Rs. 49,39,025/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Twenty Five Only) for Construction of CC roads in Madugula Village of Gurazala Mandal, Guntur District (Now Palnadu), which is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against to the Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents to pay the total contract bill amount of Rs. 49,39,025/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Twenty Five Only) along with interest for the work carried by the Petitioner 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 forthwith to pay the total contract bill amount of Rs. 49,39,025/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Twenty Five Only) along with interest in respect of work carried by the Petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANIKANTA THOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Manikanta Thota, learned counsel for the petitioner, P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and 3 Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents 1 to 5 and Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the 6th respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withholding the balance amount of Rs.49,39,025/- in relation to the work executed by the petitioner i.e., Construction of CC roads in Madugula Village of Gurazala Mandal, Guntur District (Now Palnadu District), as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Narasaraopet – 4th respondent dated 07.03.2026. 4. As seen from the instructions, the total value of the work done by the petitioner in relation to the aforementioned work is Rs.52,63,575/-. After withhold/statutory recovery of Rs.7,63,711/-, and the balance amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.44,99,864/-. 5. In reply, Sri Manikanta Thota, learned counsel for the petitioner, endorses that the balance amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.44,99,864/-. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions and the submission of learned counsel on either side, there is no dispute regarding the balance amount of Rs.44,99,864/- payable to the petitioner. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal 4 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 submission of learned counsel on either, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the balance amount of Rs.44,99,864/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Four 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 Date: 09.03.2026 SNI 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 238 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 23749 of 2024 Date: 09.03.2026 SNI