APHC010642162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 33224/2025 Between: 1. LANKA RAMA SIVA REDDY, S/O. ESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC- CONTRACTOR, R/O.H.NO.26-2-27, RITHWIK ENCLAVE, A.K. NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ CIRCLE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ (PIU) SUB DIVISION, PODALAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 2 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 appropriate writ, direction, order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in questioning the action of the respondents in not releasing bill payment for the package of works i.e., Package No.APAM/NLR/Surveypalli/20, Total Estimate Cost Rs.1015.00 Lakhs Consisting of 13 works in Surveypalli Constituency for the estimated contract value of Rs.8,12,64,547/- in respect of the bill amount of Rs.2,88,76,127/- for the works executed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,88,76,127/- towards the bill amount for the works executed by the petitioner and to 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 direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,88,76,127/- towards bill amount for the package of works executed by the petitioner i.e., Package No.APAM/NLR/Surveypalli/20, Total Estimate Cost Rs.1015.00 Lakhs Consisting of 13 works in Surveypalli Constituency pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order : Heard K. Naveen Kumar, 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. Page 3 of 4 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.2,88,76,127/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed by him i.e. „Package No.APAM/NLR/Surveypalli/20, Total Estimate Cost Rs.1015.00 Lakhs Consisting of 13 works in Surveypalli Constituency‟, in pursuance of agreement, dated 22.08.2023, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today when the matter is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer PR PIU Division, Nellore. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a value of Rs.3,30,37,741/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory recovery of Rs.41,00,430/-, is Rs.2,89,37,311/-. 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 the aforementioned work and the petitioner‟s entitlement for Rs.2,89,37,311/-. 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 p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.” 6. Given the instructions furnished by Executive Engineer PR PIU Division, Nellore, though there is a small variation in the amount claimed by the petitioner and the amount determined by the official, as payable to the petitioners, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,89,37,311/- (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Nine Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Eleven only) 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: 30.03.2026 IKN