APHC010591692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 30839/2025 Between: 1. SRI VINAYAKA ROCK DRILLS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, J.V. SUBBA RAYUDU, AT H.NO.87/1387-9-2-104, SESHADRI NAGAR, KURNOOL. 2. M/S. PADMASRI BORE WELLS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, J.V. SUBBA RAYUDU, AT H.NO.79-10-152A, KRISHNA NAGAR, KURNOOL. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, RWS AND S CIRCLE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWSS AND S DIVISION, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DT.28.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2025 ...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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one of Mandamus, declaring the action of the in the nature Writ respondents paying p. 2 the admitted bill amounts payable to the petitioners i.e. petitioner to an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and 2nd respondent to an amount 1st amount of Rs. 19,60,000/- for the various works of drilling borewells as sanctioned by the 2nd respondent vide orders Dt.16-08-2022 under CMDF Funds Scheme in view of the various agreements entered in between the petitioners and 3rd respondent vide agreement No.30 and 31/2021-2022, Dt.20-12-2021 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Arts.14 86 19(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith release the payment of above bill amount along with interest 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 forthwith process and release the pending bills for admitted bill amounts payable to the petitioners i.e. petitioner to an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and 2nd respondent to an amount of Rs. 19,60,000/- for the various works of drilling borewells under CMDF Funds Scheme and pass IA NO: 2 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 permit the petitioner to implead the proposed 5th respondent as party respondent in W.P No. 30839 of 2025 as well as in IA No. 1 of 2025 also and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY 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.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for p. 3 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the admitted bill amounts payable to the petitioners i.e. petitioner to an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and 2nd respondent to an amount 1st amount of Rs. 19,60,000/- for the various works of drilling borewells as sanctioned by the 2nd respondent vide orders Dt.16-08-2022 under CMDF Funds Scheme in view of the various agreements entered in between the petitioners and 3rd respondent vide agreement No.30 and 31/2021-2022, Dt.20-12-2021, 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 respondents 4 and 5. 4. A perusal of the said instructions of the 4th respondent-Executive Engineer, RWS&S Division, Adoni would disclose that the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.19,60,000/- respectively. However, as per the department records, an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- is due and payable to the 1st petitioner and an amount of Rs.7,60,000/- is due and payable to the 2nd petitioner, totaling Rs.16,60,000/- is payable to the petitioners from 4th respondent. 5. A perusal of the said instructions of the 5th respondent-Executive Engineer, RWS&S(P) Division, Kurnool would disclose that as per the department records, the Gross amount admissible to the 2nd petitioner is Rs.11,99,973/- and after deducting statutory recoveries of Rs.54,639/-, the net amount payable to the 2nd petitioner comes to Rs.11,45,334/-. 6. The written instructions of the respondents 4 and 5 are made as part of the record. p. 4 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners endorses the same. 8. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioners’ entitlement for Rs.28,05,334/- (Rs.16,60,000/- + Rs.11,45,334/-). 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.”. 9. Given the instructions furnished by the 3rd respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.28,05,334/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Five Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Four only) payable to the petitioners 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 PVD 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400