APHC010623002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 32380 OF 2025 Between: 1. U. VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, CHINAPAVANI VILLAGE, L.SAMUDRAM MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH CENTER FOR FINANCIAL SYSTEMS AND SERVICES, 3RD FLOOR, NIDHI BHAVAN, IT PARK, BESIDE APIIC TOWERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, , PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, SINGARAYAKONDA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S, SINGARAYAKONDA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2 SRS, J W.P.No.32380 of 2025 8. THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND ACCOUNTS, DIRECTORATE OF WORKS AND ACCOUNTS VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT 9. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, WORKS AND ACCOUNTS, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order: Heard Ms. P.Sai Snehitha, learned counsel representing Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for the respondents 1 to 5 & 7 to 9 and Sri Hritik, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.6. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the 1st and final bill amount of Rs.23,04,783/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Three only) relating to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. “Construction of 350 KL clear water sump at Mulaguntapadu Village in Singarayakonda Mandal, in pursuance of Agreement No.06/2022-2023 dated 12.10.2022, as illegal and arbitrary. 3 SRS, J W.P.No.32380 of 2025 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of Assistant Executive Engineer, RWS&S Singarayakonda Mandal – respondent No.7. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the work and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.25,15,094/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.25,15,094/-. 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 instructions furnished by respondent No.7, though there is a variation in the amount claimed by the petitioner and the amount determined 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 4 SRS, J W.P.No.32380 of 2025 by the official, as payable to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.25,15,094/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Ninety Four 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: 21.01.2026 BSK 5 SRS, J W.P.No.32380 of 2025 396 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 32380 OF 2025 Date: 21.01.2026 BSK