APHC010534582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 27910/2025 Between: 1. VENNA KASI REDDY, S/O. KASI REDDY AGE 35 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR R/O. D. NO. 4-59, RAMACHANDRA KOTA VILLAGE DORNALA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF R AND B, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, , (R AND B) CIRCLE ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER R AND B, , MARKAPUR PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (R AND B), SUB-DIVISION, MARKAPUR PRAKASAM DISTRICT 7. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (R AND B), YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2 ...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 an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying LS I and Part bill amount of Rs. 81,39,706/- and LS II and Final bill amount of Rs. 34,09,901/- (Total of Rs. 1,15,49,607/-) to the petitioner towards execution of the work i.e Renovation of Existing Inspection Bungalow at Yerragondapalem in Prakasam District under agreement No. C.R. No. 60/2023-24, dated 23.02.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, irresponsible, against to the principles of natural justice, apart from being violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay above bill amounts along with interest to the petitioner in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 LS I & Part bill amount of Rs. 81,39,706/- and LS II & Final bill amount of Rs. 34,09,901/- (Total of Rs. 1,15,49,607/-) /- to the petitioner towards execution of the work i.e Renovation of Existing Inspection Bungalow at Yerragondapalem in Prakasam District under agreement No. C.R. No. 60/2023-24, dated 23.02.2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 27910/2025 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for the following relief: “to issue an order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying LS I and Part bill amount of Rs.81,39,706/- and LS II and Final bill amount of Rs.34,09,901/- (Total of Rs.1,15,49,607/-) to the petitioner towards execution of the work i.e., Renovation of Existing Inspection Bungalow at Yerragondapalem in Prakasam District under agreement No.C.R.No.60/2023-24, dated 23.02.2024 as illegal arbitrary irresponsible against to the principles of natural justice apart from being violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay above bill amounts along with interest to the petitioner in the interest of justice and pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, Finance & Planning appearing for the respondents. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are entered into an agreement vide C.R.No.60/2023-24, dated 23.02.2024 for the execution of the work i.e., renovation of existing inspection bungalow at yerragondapalem in prakasam district. Accordingly, the petitioner has executed the work and the respondents were not paid the bill amount of Rs.81,39,706/- towards part bill amount of LS I and final bill amount of Rs.34,09,901/- towards LS II. The said act of the respondents in not paying the bill amount is in violation of 4 article 300(A) of the Constitution of India is arbitrary and illegal hence prayed to direct the respondents to pay the bill amount for the work executed by the petitioner. 4. The respondent No.6 has filed the counter affidavit and admitted the work executed by the petitioner that they are not disputed the amounts due to the petitioner. It is stated at Para 6 of the counter affidavit that the amounts due to the petitioner was submitted to the PAO, Ongole, for making payment to the petitioner and the release of arrear bills are waiting for funds from the Finance Department. 5. Insofar as the interest component, the respondents contended that the petitioner should approach the appropriate forum, relying on the order of the Division Bench in W.A.791 of 2022 dated 26.04.2022. The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s order, directing the petitioner to seek relief regarding interest from the appropriate forum. In a catena of cases this Court had held that where dispute revolves round questions of fact, the matter ought not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the present case, the respondents have not disputed the payment due to the petitioner for the work executed and the respondents have manifested in their written instructions that they will pay the amount to the petitioner and they are unable to the pay due to “Bill waiting for fund clearance”, once the work executed by the petitioner to the respondents is admitted and the payment due to the petitioner is not disputed by the 5 respondents, there was hardly no need for this Court to refer the matter to any forum or for arbitration for passing an arbitral award assuming that any condition in the agreement to that extent. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to pay the admitted amount to the petitioner. 7. In The D.F.O., South Kheri And Ors. vs Ram Sanehi Singh1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when a State decides not to pay the dues with mala fide, with ulterior motives or arbitrarily or when the State avoids payment of the dues with mala fide, with ulterior motives, arbitrarily or when the State discriminates, while making payment dues, such a decision of the State not to pay or such an act of the State of not paying its dues cannot be said to be wholly beyond the reach of Article 226, for asking the writ Court to do is to force the State to act in accordance with its constitutional obligation by adhering to the letter and spirit of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions: (a) The respondents are directed to clear the due amount to the petitioner within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (b) Sum due to the petitioner would mean, the sum arrived after statutory deductions. If there is any dispute regarding statutory recoveries, the petitioner is at liberty to communicate/interface with the respondents. 1 (1971) 3 SCC 864 6 (c) With regard to interest, the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J Dated: 20.01.2026 MSI 7 153 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 27910/2025 Dated: 20.01.2026 MSI