APHC010534182024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 27892/2024 Between: 1. SRI DHARMA SHASTA CONTRACTORS, M/S 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 AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT MINERAL FUND TRUST, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PR CIRCLE, KUMOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR (PIU) DIVISION, NANDYAL @ KURNOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT. . Page 2 of 6 6. THE DEPUTY 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 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. 17,93,077/- vide M Book No. 1860 (A), even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Providing internal CC Roads including drainage system from Bala Venkata Swam.y (H) to Pedda Guruaiali (H) and other internal streets in BC Colony of Kalugotla (V) of Koilkuntla Mandal of Kurnool District, vide Agreement No. 27/2022-23, 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. 17,93,077/- vide M Book No. 1860 (A) with interest @24percent 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 please to direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs. 17,93,077/- vide M Book No. 1860 (A) with interest @24% 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 Bala Venkata Swamy (H) to Pedda Guruaiah (H) and other internal streets in BC Colony of Kalugotla (V) of Koilkuntla Mandal of Kurnool District, vide Agreement No. 27/2022-23, 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 MINES AND GEOLOGY 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING p. 3 The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.17,93,077/- relating to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. Providing internal CC roads including drainage system from Bala Venkata Swamy (H) to Pedda Guruaiah (H) and other internal streets in BC colony of Kalugotla (V) of Kolikuntla Mandal, Kurnool District, pursuant to Agreement No.27/2022-23, dated 22.04.2022, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri B. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for the respondents. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, PR (PIU) Division, Nandyal – respondent No.5. 4. A perusal of the said instructions indicates that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works. It would further indicate that the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.19,72,903/-. After QC recovery, i.e. Rs.1,79,826/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.17,93,077/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.17,93,077/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. Page 4 of 6 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Constructions v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others1, in Para Nos.3 & 4, has observed as follows: “3. It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22- 3-2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No. 25216 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated 2-5-2014 [Surya Construction v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 6071] dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553] ) 4. This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2009, we direct Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessary payment within a period of four weeks from today. Given the long period of delay, interest @ 6% p.a. may also be awarded.” 7. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors2, 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.”. 1 (2019) 16 SCC 794 p. 5 8. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.5, the Writ Petition is 2 2025 SCC online SC 1400 disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.17,93,077/- 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: 07.03.2026 TVN p. 6 128 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 28792 of 2024 Date: 07.03.2026 TVN