APHC010618462023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31875/2023 Between: 1. RAGHAVA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR P.PRASAD REDDY, S/O.LATE RAGHAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O.H.NO.8-2- 603/L/27/ AND 28, KRISHNAPURAM STREET, ROAD NO. 10, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, NEAR PRATUR CROSS ROAD TADEPALLI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH, 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, APRRP AND ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, P.R., VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, P.R. VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.I.U, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. Page 2 of 5 ...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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of amount of Rs,l 1,44,02,591/- (3rd and Part bill) even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the work Consisting of one hundred seven works in Punganur, Somala, Sodum, Pulicherla, Rompicherla 86 Chowdepalle Mandals of Chittoor District vide i.e.. agreement dt29.09.2021 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of Rs.l 1,44,02,591/- (3rd Ss Part bill) with interest @24 percentage per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 Rs.11,44,02,591/- (3rd Ss Part bill) with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of work i.e. “Consisting of one hundred seven works in Punganur, Somala, Sodum, Pulicherla, Rompicherla 85 Chowdepalle Mandals of Chittoor District” vide agreement dt.29.09.2021, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withholding an amount of Rs.11,44,02,591/- relating to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. consisting of one hundred seven works in Punganur, Somala, Sodum, Pulicherla, Rompicherla & Chowdepalle Mandals, p. 3 Chittoor District, pursuant to Agreement No.Nil/2021-22, dated 29.09.2021, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri P. Anand Surya, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalva, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for respondents 1 to 6. 3. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.5. At para No.3, it was contended that the gross value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.10,89,96,821/-, and after statutory deductions, i.e. Rs.3,58,99,709/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.7,30,97,112/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not refute the averment made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5 and, in fact, endorses the same. 5. Thus, as seen from the averment made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.7,30,97,112/-. 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.”. 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 p. 4 6. Given the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.7,30,97,112/- 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: 17.02.2026 TVN p. 5 295 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31875 of 2023 Date: 17.02.2026 TVN