APHC010477432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 24239 OF 2025 Between: 1. YARRAMASU SIVA RAMA KRISHNA, S/O SUBBA RAO, D.NO.2-75, GUNDALAPADU VILLAGE, PJIRANGIPURAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS.. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS.. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NH -16, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT WING), GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S SUB-DIVISION- LL, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 SRS, J W.P.No.24239 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T VENU GOPAL 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 T.Venu Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning, appeared for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the payment of Rs.23,84,422/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Two only), payable to the petitioner in relation to the 8 works executed by the petitioner i.e., 1) Consturction of CC Drains from Meda Venkataramana (H) in Phirangipuram (M) 2) Construction of CC Drains both side from Talluri Venkateswarlu (H) to Talluri Gandhi (H) in Merikapudi (V) of Phirangipuram (M) 3) Construction of Culvert at Entrance of ST Colony in Phirangipuram-III in Phirangipuram (M) 4) Construction of CC Drains from Pothuri Venkateswarlu (H) to Tokala Ankamarao (H) in Phirangipuram (V&M) 5) Construction of CC Drains from Kumba Shivaiah (H) to SK.Subhani (H) of Phirangipuram (V&M) 6) Construction of CC Drains from Narasapuram Parvathi (H) to Dasari Vijayalakshmi site in Nekkallu (V) of Thulluru (M) 7) Construction of CC Drains 3 SRS, J W.P.No.24239 of 2025 from Narasapuram Parvathi (H) to Batturi Narayana (H) in Nekkallu (V) of Thulluru (M) 8) Construction of CC Drains from Gopidesi Gopalakrishna (H) to Mekala Vijayakumar (H) in Nekkallu (V) of Thulluru Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, RWS&S Division, Guntur - 5th respondent dated 27.01.2026. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.23,84,422/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions submitted by the Executive Engineer, RWS&S Division, Guntur - 5th respondent, there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement. Since there is no dispute regarding the petitioner’s entitlement and the amount payable to the petitioner is undisputed and admitted, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors1, it was held at Para No.8 as under: 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 4 SRS, J W.P.No.24239 of 2025 <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.= 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release/pay an amount of Rs.23,84,422/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Two only) to the petitioner regarding the execution of the aforementioned works, within a period of 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: 28.01.2026 BSK 5 SRS, J W.P.No.24239 of 2025 297 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 24239 OF 2025 Date: 28.01.2026 BSK