APHC010505262024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26155/2024 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 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, KUMOOL DISTRICT 6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NANDYAL, 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 2 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. 18,12,208/-, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Providing internal CC Roads including drainage system from Pedda Naidu (H) to Ramalakshmamma (H) and other internal streets Near Darga of Kalugotla (V) in Koilakuntla (M) of Kurnool District, vide Agreement No. /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. 18,12,208/- with interest 24 percent 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. 18,12,208/- with interest at 24 percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of works i.e. Providing internal CC Roads including drainage system from Pedda Naidu (H) to Ramalakshmamma (H) and other internal streets Near Darga of Kalugotla (V) in Koilakuntla (M)of Kurnool District, vide Agreement No. /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 REVENUE 3. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY 4. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order: Heard Ms. Naseem Sultana, learned counsel representing Sri Bathala Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned 3 Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Finance and Planning, appeared for the respondents 1 to 6. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.18,12,208/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., providing internal CC Roads including drainage system from Pedda Naidu house to Ramalakshmamma house and other internal streets Near Darga of Kalugotla Village in Kolikuntla Mandal, Kurnool District, vide Agreement No…/2022-23 dated 22.04.2022. 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 the Executive Engineer, PR (PIU) Division, Nandyal -5th respondent dated 02.02.2026. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.13,45,856/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.13,45,856/-. Since the 4 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.13,45,856/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Six only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, 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: 10.02.2026 SNI 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 148 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26155 OF 2024 Date: 10.02.2026 SNI