APHC010606512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31405/2025 Between: 1. G LINGA NAIDU, S/O. VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. MUDIGUBBA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARMTENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINACE AND PLANNING DEPARMTENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PVS ICON, PATHURU CROSS ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUTAPARTHY, SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT.. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P. R. DIVISION, PENUKONDA, SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 6. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, PUTAPARTHY, SREE SATYA SAI DISTRICT. Page 2 of 6 ...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 topleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of Rs. 30,600/- plus Rs. 28,005/- plus Rs. 16,393/- plus Rs. 31,550/- plus Rs. 24380 plus Rs. 22306/- plus Rs. 30178/- plus Rs. 12074/- plus Rs. 48,203/- plus Rs. 59,996/- plus Rs. 60362/- plus Rs. 36331/- plus Rs. 48910/- plus Rs. 52864/- to the total sum of Rs. 5,02,152/- as well as EMD deposits of Rs. 11,300/- plus Rs.11500/- plus Rs.7000/- plus Rs. 11,300/- plus Rs. 9000/- plus Rs. 9000/- plus Rs. 11500/- plus Rs. 5000/- plus Rs. 18000/- plus Rs. 23000/- plus Rs. 22500/- plus Rs. 13500/- plus Rs. 22000/- and Rs. 18000/- to the total sum of Rs. 1,92,600/-due to the petitioner despite successful completion of works in terms of the work orders even after completion and inspite of repeated requests, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust enrichment, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India agreement/s for the works done by the petitioner, and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith release the due payment of approved bill amounts of Rs. 5,02,152/-along with EMD deposits of Rs. 1,92,600/- andinterest @ 24 percent p.a. to the petitioner from the dates of approval till payment is made 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 pleased to grant interim direction to the Respondents to forthwith pay the principle amounts for the approved bill/s due to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5,02,152/-along with EMD deposits of Rs. 1,92,600/-for the works executed by the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAVULURU KRISHNA SAI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: p. 3 ::ORDER :: Heard Sri Navuluru Krishna Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Naga Chandrika, 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 not releasing an amount of Rs.6,94,752/- (Rs.5,02,152/- + Rs.1,92,600/-) in relation to the works executed by the petitioner i.e. 1) Providing CC road from T. Narayana Reddy house to S. thirupal House at Edulapalli (V) of Mudigubba (M), 2) providing CC road from M. Ramachandraiah House to MPP School at budanampalli (V) of Mudigubba (M), 3) Providing CC road from K. Krishna Reddy House to C. Linga Reddy House at Edulappali (V) of Mudigubba (M), 4) Providing CC road from B. Tippa Reddy House to T. Narayana Reddy House at Edulappali (V) of Mudigubba (M) and 5) Providing CC road from B. Ramachandra Reddy House to B. Vengala Reddy House at Budanam Palli (V) of Mudigubba (M), 6) Providing CC road from G.Narapa Reddy House to G. Venkata Reddy House at Raghavapalli (V) of Mudigubba(M), 7) Providing CC road at Harijanawada in Edulapalli Village of Mudigubba, 8) Providing CC road from R. Nagabhusana House to B. Narayanaswamy House at Raghavapalli (V) of Mudigubba(M), 9) Providing CC road at Rangapuram (V) of Mudigubba(M), 10) Providing CC road to the approach and internal road at Rangapuram Harijanawada (V) of Mudigubba(M), 11) Providing CC road at Harijanawada in Budanampalli(V) of Mudigubba (M), 12) Providing CC road from MP Ele. School to RDT Community Hall at Budanampalli(V) of Mudigubba(M), 13) Providing CC road from Budanam Temple to Anjaneya Temple at Buddanampalli (V) of Mudigubba(M) and 14) Providing CC road from OHSR p. 4 Back Side to P Raju House & P. Gangaiah house to P Peddaraju House at Chithravaripalli (V) of Mudigubba(M), 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 respondent No.5. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.6,92,611/- (Rs.5,00,011/- + Rs.1,92,600/-). 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 the aforementioned work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.6,92,611/-. 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.” 7. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.5, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 6,92,611/- p. 5 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Six Hundred and Eleven 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: 04.02.2026 IKN p. 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31405 of 2025 Date: 04.02.2026 IKN