APHC010655722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34395 OF 2025 Between: 1. P HARI BABU, S/O. NAGESWARARAO, AGE.46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS / CONTRACTOR, R/O.LINGALAPADU (P),NANDIGAMA (M), NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA 4. THE NANDIGAMA MUNICIPALITY/NANDIGAMA, NAGAR PANCHAYAT. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER NANDIGAMA,NTR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S (P) DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA, NTR (OLD KRISHNA) DISTRICT 6. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S SUB DIVISION, NANDIGAMA, NTR (OLD KRISHNA) DISTRICT 7. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RWS AND S CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D V SASIDHAR 2 SRS, J W.P.No.34395 of 2025 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order: Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Finance and Planning Department appeared for respondents 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for the 3rd respondent. Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel appeared for the 4th respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amounts payable to the petitioner i.e., (1) Construction of CC drain from Kota Vijayarao House to Kommavarapu Venkataratnam House in Thotaravulapadu Village of Chandarlapadu Mandal, Estimate Rs.2,00,000/- (2) Construction of CC drain from Kota Raju House to Velpula Yesupadam House in Thotaravulapadu Village of Chandarlapadu Mandal, Estimate Rs.5,00,000/- (3) Construction of CC Culverts with Cover Slabs in various places of Thotaravulapdu Village of Chandarlapadu Mandal Part 1, Estimate Rs.5,00,000/- (4) Construction of CC drain from Kommavarapu Venkataratnam House to Velpula Nathaneelu House in Thotaravulapdu Village of Chandarlapadu Mandal, Estimate Rs.5,00,000/- 3 SRS, J W.P.No.34395 of 2025 (5) Construction of CC Culverts with Cover Slabs in various places of Thotaravulapdu Village of Chandarlapadu Mandal Part 2, Estimate Rs.1,00,000/- (6) Construction of CC drain from Kota Gandhi House to Kota Raju House in Thotaravulapdu Village of Chandarlapadu Mandal, Estimate Rs.2,00,000/-, is illegal and arbitrary. 3. The 3rd respondent accorded administrative sanction vide Proceedings No.e-28676/DYSO-2/DESO/HIW/GGMP/2022, dated 30.11.2023, for the aforementioned works. The petitioner executed the works, and the gross amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.19,79,595/- and the net amount of Rs.17,81,592/-. However, the amount has not been paid so far. 4. Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted the written instructions dated 10.12.2025, signed by the 5th respondent. As seen from the instructions, the works were completed. The gross amount of Rs.19,79,595/-. The net amount payable after statutory deductions is Rs.17,81,592/- payable to the petitioner. The instructions further indicate that due to non availability of the grant, bills were not uploaded in NIDHI Portal. Soon after the release of the grant, the bills will be uploaded in NIDHI Portal. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement. Since there is no dispute regarding the petitioner’s entitlement and the amount is admitted, the writ petition filed by the petitioner vis-à-vis the release of the amount under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways 4 SRS, J W.P.No.34395 of 2025 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 facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the amount of Rs.17,81,592/- to the petitioner regarding the execution of the aforementioned work, within four (04) 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: 19.01.2026 BSK 1 2025 SCC onLine SC 1400 5 SRS, J W.P.No.34395 of 2025 224 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34395 OF 2025 Date: 19.01.2026 BSK