APHC010581072025 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: 30225/2025 Between: 1. B. SRINIVASARAO,, S/O AMARAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, R/O.D.NO.2-7, IRUKUPALEM VILLAGE, MUPPALLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT (NOW PALNADU). ...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, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT, NARASARAOPET. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT (NOW PALNADU). 5. THE ASSISTANT PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, LINGAMGUNTIA, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 6. THE NEMALIPURI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, NEMALIPURI VILLAGE, RAJUPALEM MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT (NOW PALNADU). ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 2 SRS,J 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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action, things and deeds of Respondents in not paying the contract bill amount to the Petitioner i.e., Rs.14,45,586/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six Only) in respect of the work for Construction of Pipe Culverton Gullapalli Vagu in Nemalipuri 1 Gram Sachivalayam limits in Nemalipuri Village in Rajupalem Mandal, which is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against to the Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents to pay the total contract bill amount of Rs. 14,45,586/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six Only) along with interest for the work carried by the Petitioner and 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents forthwith to pay the total contract bill amount of Rs. 14,45,586/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six Only) along with interest in respect of works carried by the Petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANIKANTA THOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: p. 3 SRS,J ::ORDER :: Heard Sri Manikanta Thota, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri M. Sudhir, learned standing counsel for respondent No.6. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the bill amount of Rs.14,45,586/- in relation to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. 8Construction of Pipe Culvert on Gullapalli Vagu in Nemalipuri 1 Grama Sachivalayam limits, Nemalipuri village in Rajupalem Mandal, 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 Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Narasaraopet – respondent No.4. 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.13,18,986/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner9s entitlement for Rs. 13,18,986/-. Since p. 4 SRS,J 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.=. 7. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.3, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 13,18,986/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Six 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: 28.01.2026 IKN p. 5 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 SRS,J 260 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 30225 of 2025 Date: 28.01.2026 IKN