APHC010594872025 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: 30946/2025 Between: 1. RAGHAVA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR P.PRASAD REDDY, S/O. LATE RAGHAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O.H.NO.8-2- 603/1/27/ AND 28, KRISHNAPURAM STREET, ROAD NO. 10, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ 85 RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. PROJECT DIRECTOR ANDHRA PRADESH RURAL ROAD PROJECT AND ENGINEERINCHIEF, PANCHAYAT RAJ, BANDAR ROAD, ZP COMPOUND, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 85 PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of amount Plain LS 4th and Part bill of Gross Rs. 12,37,66,550/- in Net amount of Rs. 10,06,53,437/- (Nidhi Portal 2025-9080857) even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., package No 53/APRRP/PRED/VSP/Roads/009 consisting of One Hundred Seven works in punganur, Somala, Sodum, Pulicherla, Rompicherla and Chowdepalle Mandals in Chittoor District, Vide Agreement No /2021-22, Dt 29.09.2021 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of Gross Rs. 12,37,66,550/- in Net amount of Rs. 10,06,53,437/- (Nidhi Portal 2025-9080857) with interest @24percentage per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith 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 consider for payment of Gross Rs.12,37,66,550/- in Net amount of Rs.10,06,53,437/- (Nidhi Portal: Writ2025-9080857) with interest @ 24percentage per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of work i.e., Package No53/APRRP/PRED/VSP/Roads/009 consisting of One Hundred Seven works in punganur, Somala, Sodum, Pulicherla, Rompicherla and Chowdepalle Mandals in Chittoor District, Vide Agreement No;/2021- 22, Dt.29.09.2021, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA 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 Anand Surya, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, p. 3 learned Assistant Government Pleader for 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 withholding the payment of balance of Rs.12,37,66,550/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Package No. 53/APRRP/PRED/VSP/Roads/009 consisting of One Hundred Seven Works in Puganur, SOmala, Sodum, Pulicherla, Rompicherla and Chowdepalle Mandals, Chittoor District vide Agreement No../2021-22 dated 29.09.2021, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement vide Agreement No../2021-22 dated 29.09.2021 to execute the work. Thereafter, the petitioner executed the work. However, the respondents failed to release the amount. 4. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. In para Nos.3 and 4, it was stated as follows: “I humbly submit that with regard to package No. 53/APRRP/PRED/VSP/Roads/009 consisting of One Hundred Seven Works in Puganur, SOmala, Sodum, Pulicherla, Rompicherla and Chowdepalle Mandals, Chittoor District, the Gross amount for the work done by the writ petitioner is Rs.12,37,66,550/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Thirty-Seven Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only) and after statutory deduction of Rs.2,31,13,113/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty-One Lakhs Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Thirteen Only) including quality control p. 4 certificate, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.10,06,53,437/- (Rupees Ten Crores Six Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Seven only). I humbly submit that the Executive Engineer, Project implementation Unit (PIU) herein has forwarded the said bill to the Pays and Accounts Officer, Chittoor District which was approved for payment vide CFMS Bill No.2025- 9080857 dated 12.06.2025 wherein the Status of the Bill is indicating as “Waiting for Fund Clearance”.” 5. Thus, as seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.10,06,53,437/-. 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 facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.10,06,53,437/- (Rupees p. 5 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 Ten Crores Six Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Seven only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within six (06) 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. 6 167 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 30946 OF 2025 Date: 24.03.2026 SNI