J. Venkata Narasimha Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/26027/2025 · 2026-03-01
Subba Reddy Satti
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24394 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24394 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010495642025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26027/2025 Between:
1. J. VENKATA NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O VENKATESWARA REDDY BEING THE PROPRIETOR OF SRI SAI KRISHNA TRADERS, H.N0.1- 228/B, NEAR VENKATESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, AKURAJUPALLI, MORJAMPADU VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT, MACHAVARAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT (NOW PALNADU). ...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT (NOW PALNADU). Page 2 of 4
6. THE ASSISTANT PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, LINGAMGUNTLA. NARASARAOPET. 7. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR/ DISTRICT, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.29.10.2025 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2025.
...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.51,94,599/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Nine Eighty Only) in respect of the works for Reparis and Construction of Community Halls, 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.51,94,599/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Nine Eighty Only) along with interest for the works carried by the Petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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.51,94,599/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Nine Eighty Only) along with interest in respect of works carried by the Petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 Implead proposed Respondent No.7 as Respondent No. 7 in the main Writ Petition in W.P.No.26027 of 2025 and in all interlocutory applications in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: p. 3
1. MANIKANTA THOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
2.
GP FOR REVENUE
3. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
4. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri Manikanta Thota, 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 paying the contract bill amount to the Petitioner i.e., Rs.51,94,599/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Nine Eighty Only) in respect of the works for Reparis and Construction of Community Halls, 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 5th respondent-Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Narsaraopeta.
4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and out of the total value of the work done i.e. Rs.51,94,599/-, after deducting statutory recoveries of Rs.8,90,253/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.43,04,346/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. p. 4
6. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.43,04,346/-. 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.”.
7. Given the instructions furnished by the 5th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.43,04,346/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Four Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Six 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 PVD
1 2025 SCC online SC 1400