Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25618 (AP)

R SURESH BABU v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/29976/2023 · 2026-03-23

Subba Reddy Satti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010579162023 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: 29976/2023 Between: 1. R SURESH BABU, S/O. R. RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC MEMBER OF NOMINEE WORKS COMMITTEE, R/O. ILAVARA VILLAGE, KONDEPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KONDAPI MANDAL, PRAKSAM DISTRICT 5. THE ILAVARA VILLAGE GRAM PANCHAYATHY, REP. BY IT'S PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, ILAVARA VILLAGE, KONDEPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. THE DIRECTOR, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE (MGNREG SCHEME), MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KRUSHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 2 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamas declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the funds an amount of Rs.l,80,060/-(0ne lakh Eighty Thousand and Sixty Rupees Only) to the petitioner with interest in pursuance of the MGNREGS works for 'Repairs to Solid Wealth Processing Centers (SBM), Ilavara' of Kondapi Mandal, Prakasam District with work ID. No. 081194210015170554, FTO No.9084221200002 and M.book No. 3558 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently direct the respondents to release the funds 'Repairs to Solid Wealth Processing Centers (SBM), Ilavara' of Kondapi Mandal, Prakasam District an amount of Rs. 1,80,060/- with interest which is due to the petitioner forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 release the funds “Repairs to Solid Wealth Processing Centers (SBM), Ilavara” of Kondapi Mandal, Prakasam District an amount of Rs. 1,80,060/- with interest which is due to the petitioner forthwith and to pass such other order or orders pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK MEERAVALI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Shaik Meeravali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Finance and Planning for the respondents 1 to 3 and Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. Page 3 of 5 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.1,80,060/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Repairs to Solid Wealth Processing Centers (SBM), Ilavara of Kondapi Mandal, Prakasam District vide work ID.No.081194210015170554, FTO No.9084221200002 and M.Book.No.3558, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 4 and 5, submitted the instructions of the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent. Wherein it is stated as follows: “It is submitted that the petitioner has executed work for the Solid Wealth Processing Centers SBM Ilavara of Kondapi Mandal, Prakasam District under MGNREGS Grant for an amount of Rs.1,80,060/- with work ID.No. 081194210015170554, FTO No.9084221200002 and M.Book.No.3558. It is further submitted that the bills was already uploaded in the Mandal Computer Centre, Kondapi by the 4th respondent i.e., Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kondapi Mandal, Prakasam District vide FTO No.9084221200002 for an amount of Rs.1,80,060/-.” 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.1,80,060/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. Page 4 of 5 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.1,80,060/-. 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 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 5th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.1,80,060/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand and Sixty only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within two (02) 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 166 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 29976 OF 2023 Date: 24.03.2026 SNI