APHC010504952024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26089/2024 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 AP, 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, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR (PIU) DIVISION, NANDYAL @ KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NANDYAL, p. 2 SRS,J 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 topleased 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. 17,34,426/-, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e.. Providing approach CC road to Yangati Temple @ L/S in Yaganti, vide Agreement No. /2023-24, dated 25.07.2023 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs. 17,34,426/- 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 please to direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs. 17,34,426/- with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of works i.e. Providing approach CC road to Yangati Temple @ L/S in Yaganti, vide Agreement No. /2023-24, dated 25.07.2023, 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 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: p. 3 SRS,J ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the bill amount of Rs.17,34,426/-, payable to the petitioner for execution of works i.e., „Providing approach CC road to Yaganti Temple L/S in Yaganti of Banaganapalli (V & M), as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Bathala Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of respondent No.5. 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 after statutory deductions is Rs.17,34,426/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner‟s entitlement for Rs.17,34,426/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is p. 4 SRS,J 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.”. 6. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.5, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.17,34,426/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Six only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, within 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: 10.03.2026 JLV p. 5 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 SRS,J 118 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26089 of 2024 Date: 10.03.2026 JLV