APHC010629112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 32665/2025 Between: 1. B. VENKATESWARA REDDY,, S/O B NAGI REDDY, H.NO. 2-20, HUSSAINAPURAM VILLAGE, BETHAMCHARLA MANDAL NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR (PIU) DIVISION, KURNOOL. 5. DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB-DIVISION, DHONE. 6. MANDAL ENGINEERING OFFICER, MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, BETHAMCHERLA MANDAL, BETHAMCHERLA. ...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 p. 2 pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in non-payment of bill dues of Rs. 12,80,305/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Thousand Three Hundred and Five only) for the work executed under Original Agreement dated 27.10.2023, is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art.14, Art. 15, Art. 19(1)(g), Art. 21, Art. 23 and Art. 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the dues of Rs. 12,80,305/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Thousand Three Hundred and Five only) for the work Construction of cement concrete road with CD work from Pullem Yella Narayana (H) to K Subbamma (H) at Ambapuram (V), Bethamcherla (M) in Nandyal District and the said work is allocated to me under the Original Agreement dated 27.10.2023, along with 24percent interest till the date of payment 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 dues of Rs. 12,80,305/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Thousand Three Hundred and Five only) for the work allocated under Original Agreement dated 27.10.2023 expeditiously within 6 weeks pending final disposal of the Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L CHANDRA OBUL REDDY 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 L.Chandra Obul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents. p. 3 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in non-payment of bill dues of Rs. 12,80,305/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Thousand Three Hundred and Five only) for the work executed under Original Agreement dated 27.10.2023, 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 the 4th respondent. 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.12,80,305/-. 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 works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.12,80,305/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors Vs. 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 the 4th respondent, though there is a small variation in the amount claimed by the petitioner and the amount determined by the official, as payable to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.12,80,305/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Thousand Three Hundred and Five 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 PVD