APHC010523562024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 27433/2024 Between: 1. KOLAKALURI MOHANA RAO, S/O.NAGESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEAR, R/O.H.NO.4-77, SC COLONY, MUSUNURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-521207. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in not releasing admitted bill amounts of Rs.26,88,595/- for the works executed for construction of CC road from IT road to Kavuluru in G.Konduru Mandal under CMDF grant and not releasing bill amounts since the year 2023 without any 2 valid reason is illegal, irrational, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently direct 2nd Respondent to release admitted bill amounts of Rs.26,88,595/- as admitted in bill No.2023-9003143 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 2nd Respondent to release admitted bill amounts of Rs.26,88,595/- as admitted in bill No.2023-9003143 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BATHALA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. 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 Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Finance and Planning, appeared for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.26,88,595/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Construction of CC Road from I.T Road to Kavuluru in G.Konduru Mandal. The Quality Control team inspected on 04.12.2023 and submitted a report on 18.12.2023. Despite the completion of the work, the amount was not released to the petitioner. 3 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Vijayawada -3rd respondent dated 06.12.2025. 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.26,52,332/-. 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.26,52,332/-. 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 4 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.26,52,332/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Two 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 Date: 03.02.2026 SNI 5 235 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 27433 OF 2024 Date: 03.02.2026 SNI