APHC010505112024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26147/2024 Between: 1. SRI DHARMA SHASTA CONTRACTORS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER A MURALI MOHAN RAO, S/O, A VENKATA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. 18-91, KONDAPETA, BANAGANAPALLI, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, PINCODE 518124. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, 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 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PR CIRCLE, KUMOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR (PIU) DIVISION, NANDYAL @ KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NANDYAL, 2 NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents not releasing the amount of Rs. 13,45,856/-, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e.. Providing internal CC Roads including drianage system from Pedda Subbarayudu (H) to Pedda Guruiah (H) and other internal streets in main Village of Kalugotla (V) Koilkuntla Mandal of Kurnool District, vide Agreement No. 26/2022-23, dated 22.04.2022 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs. 13,45,856/- with interest @24 percentage per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above- mentioned work forthwith 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 to pay for payment of amount of Rs. 13,45,856/- with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of works i.e. Providing internal CC Roads including drianage system from Pedda Subbarayudu (H) to Pedda Guruiah (H) and other internal streets in main Village of Kalugotla (V) Koilkuntla Mandal of Kurnool District, vide Agreement No. 26/2022-23, dated 22.04.2022, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BATHALA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following: 3 :: ORDER :: Heard Ms. Naseem Sultana, learned counsel representing Sri Bathala Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, appeared for the respondents 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for the 3rd respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.13,45,856/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Forty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Six only), payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., providing internal CC Roads including drainage system from Pedda Subbarayudu (H) and other internal streets in main Village of Kalugotla Village, Kolikuntla Mandal, Kurnool District vide Proceedings Rc.No.79/DMF/SE.PR/KNL/2021 dated 29.01.2022 issued by the District Collector and District Magistrate and Chairman, DMF Trust, Kurnool. The Quality Control team inspected on 16.09.2023 and submitted a report on 19.09.2023. Despite the completion of the work, the amount was not released to the petitioner. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted instructions of Executive Engineer, PR (PIU) Division, Nandyal-5th respondent dated 17.09.2025, wherein it is stated as follows: “It is humbly submitted that an amount of Rs.19,98,947/- has to be paid to the petitioner, required documents and letter for requirement of grant 4 has been submitted to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Nandyal. As and when funds are released, Net amount of Rs.18,12,208/- will be released, to the petitioner, after deducting the statutory recoveries of Rs.18,67,39/- but Petitioner has claimed the amount of Rs.13,45,856/- instead of Rs.18,12,208/-.” 4. Thus, as seen from the instructions submitted by the Executive Engineer, PR (PIU) Division, Nandyal-5th respondent, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work 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: “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.” 5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release/pay an amount of Rs. 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 18,12,208/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Twelve Thousand Two Hundred and Eight only), though the petitioner claimed Rs.13,45,856/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Forty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Six only), within a period of 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: 20.01.2026 SNI 6 102 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26147 OF 2024 Date: 20.01.2026 SNI