APHC010527492024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 27158 OF 2024 Between: 1. SADULA SURESH REDDY, S/O.S RAMA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O.1-4, PANDLA PURAM, VENKATAPURAM, BANAGANAPALLE, 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 AND CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT MINERAL FUND TRUST, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S (P) DIVISION, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S, SUB DIVISION, BANAGANAPALLI, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 SRS, J W.P.No.27158 of 2025 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 order: Heard Ms. Naseem Sultana, learned counsel representing Sri Bathala Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning, appeared for the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5, Ms. Vijaya Sree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for the 3rd respondent and Ms. M.Anusha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appeared for the 6th respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.4,40,293/- (Rupees Four Lakh Forty Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Three only), payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Construction of Community Latrine in Pandlapuram Village of Banaganapalli Mandal vide Progs.No.100/DMF/EE RWS&S/KURNOOL/2020 dated 25.02.2021 of the Collector and District Magistrate and Chairman, District Mineral Foundation Trust, Kurnool District. The Quality Control team inspected the work on 07.04.2024 and submitted a report on 12.04.2024. Despite the completion of the work, the amount was not released to the petitioner. 3 SRS, J W.P.No.27158 of 2025 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Smt. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted instructions of Executive Engineer, RWS&S (P) Sub-Division, Nandyal - 4th respondent dated 20.01.2026, wherein it is stated as follows: “The Passed bill was sent to the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology Department, Nandyal (Respondent 6) for release of Grant Rs.499821/-. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology Department, Nandyal (Respondent 6) is to be upload the Bill in CFMS. The above work bill payment is pending at Deputy Director of Mines and Geology Department, Nandyal. Hence there is no pending in this office i.e., Respondent No.4 and the Payment will be made to the Petitioner within 9 Months.” 4. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions submitted by the Executive Engineer, RWS&S (P) Sub-Division, Nandyal-4th 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: 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 4 SRS, J W.P.No.27158 of 2025 “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 facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release/pay an amount of Rs.4,40,293/- (Rupees Four Lakh Forty Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Three only) to the petitioner regarding the execution of the aforementioned work, within a period of 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: 21.01.2026 BSK 5 SRS, J W.P.No.27158 of 2025 397 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 27158 OF 2024 Date: 21.01.2026 BSK