APHC010638962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 33165/2025 Between: 1. B NARAYANA SWAMY, , S/O.B NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC- CONTRACTOR, R/O. 2/145, B C COLONY, MAMUDURU, GOOTY (M), ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, PINCODE- 515401. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PRI CIRCLE, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, DHARMAVARAM @ ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB DIVISION, GOOTY, p. 2 ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MAMUDURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, GOOTY MANDAL, ANANTAPUR 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 pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.3,35,260/- vide M Book No. 1662/ B/ NREGS/ 18-19, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Construction of Community hall near Sunkalamma temple at Mamadur Village of Gooty Mandal under SDF Grant, vide Agreement No. 310/ 2018-19, dated 11.02.2019 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs.3,35,260/- vide M Book No. 1662/ B/ NREGS/ 18-19 with interest @24percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith 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 for payment of amount of Rs.3,35,260/- vide M Book No. 1662/ B/ NREGS/ 18-19 with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of works i.e. Construction of Community hall near Sunkalamma temple at Mamadur Village of Gooty Mandal under SDF Grant, vide Agreement No. 310/ 2018-19, dated 11.02.2019, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MODAPOTHULA SUMALATHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats p. 3 The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Smt.M.Sumalatha, 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. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.3,35,260/- vide M Book No.1662/B/NREGS/18-19, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Construction of Community hall near Sunkalamma temple at Mamadur Village of Gooty Mandal under SDF Grant, vide Agreement No. 310/ 2018-19, dated 11.02.2019, 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 5th respondent. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work and out of the total value of the work done i.e. Rs.3,07,017/-, after deducting statutory recoveries of Rs.32,961/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.2,74,056/-. 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 works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.2,74,056/-. 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: p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 “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 the 5th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,74,056/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Fifty Six only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within two (02) 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