APHC010598222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 30883/2025 Between: 1. MEKA NAGAMANI RAO, S/O LATE NAGESWARA RAO AGE 68 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR R/O D NO 16/503-3-D MACHAVARAM CHILAKALAPUDI POST, MACHILIPATNAM 521002 KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF AP, REP BY ITS PRI SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AP SECRETARIAT AMRAVATI 2. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT AP SECRETARIAT AMRAVATI 3. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION TRUST (DMFT) KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM ANDHRA PRADESH 4 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHYAT RAJ 1 DEPARTMENT MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT .5. 5. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHYAT RAJ 1 DEPARTMENT MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT ...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 2 pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the Bill amount of Rs. 27,13,916/-, EMD of Rs 28,029/- BEMD of Rs 21953/- and ASD of Rs 1,19,719 /- inspite of the work completed as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondents to pay the Bill amount of Rs. 27,13,916/- , EMD of Rs 28,029/- BEMD of Rs 21953/- and ASD of Rs 1,19,719 /- together with interest @ 24percent per annum from the date of completion of the work in the interest of justice 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 pay the Bill amount of Rs. 27,13,916/-, EMD of Rs 28,029/- BEMD of Rs 21953/- and ASD of Rs.1,19,719 /- forthwith in the interest of justice forthwith in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH SRINIVAS 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 CH.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Finance and Planning, appeared for the respondents 1 to 5. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.28,83,617/- (Bill amount of Rs.27,13,916/-, EMD of Rs.28,029/-, BEMD of Rs.21,953/- and ASD of Rs.1,19,719), payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Formationof 3 Road from Tarakaturu to Guduru Raasta (Reach-I), Tarakaturu Village, Guduru Mandal. The Quality Control team inspected on 16.01.2025 and submitted a report on 20.01.2025. Despite the completion of the work, the amount was not released to the petitioner. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted instructions of Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Machilipatnam -4th respondent dated 24.01.2026. 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.24,23,069/-. 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 work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.24,23,069/-. 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 4 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 the 4th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.24,23,069/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Sixty Nine only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within four (04) 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: 03.02.2026 SNI 5 200 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 30883 OF 2025 Date: 03.02.2026 SNI