APHC010551632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 28864/2025 Between: 1. V B CONSTRUCTIONS, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P. VIJAYA BALARAM RAJU, S/O.RAMA RAJU,AGED 66 YEARS, DOOR NO.70-17-10/5, BHAVANI NAGAR, NFCL ROAD, KAKINADA - 533 003. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ( RWS/LL-A ) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST., 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER NABARD, RWS, HYDERABAD PRESENTLY AT GOLLAPUDI. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHIMAVARAM. 5. SUPERENDENTING ENGINEER, SUPERENDENTING ENGINEER, RWS AND S CIRCLE, ELURU, 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, KOVVUR, EAST GODAVARI DIST., (OLD WEST p. 2 GODAVARI DIST.,) ...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 topleased to issue order or orders, direction or directions. Writ or Writs particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamous or any appropriate writ declare the action of the respondents in not paying the FSD amount of Rs.24,84,262/- execution of work by the Petitioner under Agreement No.1/2012-13, dt.13-06-2012 of SE/RWS and S/ Eluru, dtd. 13-06-2012 to the petitioner with interest from the date of completion objervation period is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14,19 (i) (g), 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to release the FSD amount immediately and to pass such 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 Please to direct the respondent to release the amount of Rs. 24,84,262/- towards payment of FSD amount work under taken by the petitioner long back, pending disposal of main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri K.L.N.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Finance and Planning for the respondents. Page 3 of 5 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an FSD amount of Rs.24,84,262/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Providing CWS Scheme to 20 Habtitations including D.Tirumala in Two Mandals in West Godavari District, vide Agreement No.1/2012-13 dated 13.06.2012, as illegal and arbitrary. 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, RWS&S Division, Bhimavaram, dated 23.03.2026. 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 after statutory deductions is Rs.24,84,262/-. 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.24,84,262/-. 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 p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 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 instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, RWS&S Division, Bhimavaram, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.24,84,262/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Two only) 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: 24.03.2026 SNI p. 5 161 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 28864 OF 2025 Date: 24.03.2026 SNI