APHC010640412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 33180/2025 Between: 1. SRI. SOMEPALLI SAMBA SIVA RAO, , S/O. AEADIAH AGED 51 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR R/O. D. NO. 13-3-52, NEAR RAMALAYAM TEMPLE, PEDAKANCHARLA VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARASARAOPET 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR SUB-DIVISION, VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT 6. THE ASSISTANT PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT p. 2 ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in not paying final bill amounts to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 14,58,591/- towards execution of the work, namely Providing internal CC Roads in Pedakancherla Village of Vinukonda Mandal vide Agt. Dated. 07.12.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, irresponsible, against to the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the final amounts forthwith along with interest in the interest of justice and pass such 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 an amount of Rs. 14,58,591/- towards execution of the work, namely Providing internal CC Roads in Pedakancherla Village of Vinukonda Mandal vide Agt. Dated. 07.12.2023, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANIKANTA THOTA 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 Manikanta Thota, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Finance and Planning for the respondents. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.14,58,591/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed i.e., Providing internal CC Roads in p. 3 Pedsksncherla Village of Vinukonda Mandal, vide Agreement dated 07.12.2023, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Narasaraopet – 4th respondent dated 31.03.2026. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a total value of Rs.14,84,311/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions of Rs.1,98,129/-, is Rs.12,86,182/-. 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 the aforementioned work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.12,86,182/-. 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.” 7. Given the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Narasaraopet – 4th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.12,86,182/- (Rupees p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 Twelve Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Two only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of 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: 01.04.2026 SNI p. 5 246 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 33180 of 2025 Date: 01.04.2026 SNI