APHC010535972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 27778 OF 2025 Between: 1. PENMETSA VENKATA SIVA RAMA RAJU, S/O. NARAYANA RAJU, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC . CONTRACTOR, R/O. H. NO.3-132, PALLACODU STREET, NEAR SUBBA RAJU CHERUVU, PALLACODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,GUNTUR DIST., 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST., 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DIST., AT BHIMAVARAM. 5. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT, PUNAMMATHOTA, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENTING ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, NARSAPUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 SRS, J W.P.No.27778 of 2025 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, NARSAPUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. MOGALLU GRAMPANCHYAT, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER, MOGALLU GRAM PANCHAYAT, PALACODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A.SREE RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order: Heard Sri A.Sree Ram, 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 respondent Nos.1 to 7 and learned Standing Counsel, appeared for the respondent No.8. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the payment of Rs.3,70,696/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Six only), payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed by the petitioner i.e., Construction of Anganwadi building (Code No.32) at Mogallu Village of Palakoderu Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary. 3 SRS, J W.P.No.27778 of 2025 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Narasapur - 7th respondent dated 27.01.2026. 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 is Rs.3,70,696/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions submitted by the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Narasapur - 7th 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 4 SRS, J W.P.No.27778 of 2025 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.3,70,696/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Six only) to the petitioner regarding the execution of the aforementioned work, 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: 28.01.2026 BSK 5 SRS, J W.P.No.27778 of 2025 298 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 27778 OF 2025 Date: 28.01.2026 BSK