APHC010654232025 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: 34025 OF 2025 Between: 1. JUNEBOYINA VEERANJANYULU,, S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, R/O.D.NO.3-48, CHALLAGUNDIA VILLAGE, NEKARIKALLU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR). 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR). 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S SUB-DIVISION- 1, SATTENAPALLI PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR). 6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RWS AND S SUB-DIVISION, NEKARIKALLU PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR). 7. THE ASSISTANT PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, LINGAMGUNTIA, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT (EARLIER GUNTUR). ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 SRS, J W.P.No.34025 of 2025 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 Smt. Srilaxmi, learned counsel representing Sri Manikanta Thota, 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 & 4 to 7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for the 3rd respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the amount of Rs.7,11,676/-, payable to the petitioner (two works) i.e., (1) Construction of CC Drain from Kasa Suryanarayana House to Paupuleti Koteswarao House at Chejerla Village of Nekarikallu Mandal, and (2) Construction of CC Drain and Culvert from Banavathu Ramulunaik (H) to Ramavathu Koteswarao Naik (H) in the Sugali area of Chejerla Village of Nekarikallu Mandal, despite the completion of the works, is illegal and arbitrary. 3. The 3rd respondent accorded administrative sanction vide Proceedings Rc.No.54/GGMP/DySO/Plg.1/2022(35), dated 15.11.2023, for the aforementioned works. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder, and 3 SRS, J W.P.No.34025 of 2025 agreements were entered into (1) Agreement No. /23-24 dated 12.02.2024 with the Executive Engineer, RWS & S Division, Narsaraopeta (2) Agreement No. /23-24 dated 22.01.2024 with the Deputy Executive Engineer, RWS & S Sub-Division-I, Sattenapalli. The works were executed under the Gadapu Gadapaku Mana Prabhutvam (GGMP) Programme and completed in March, 2024. However, the amount has not been paid so far. 4. Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted the written instructions dated 17.01.2026, signed by the 4th respondent. As seen from the instructions, the works were completed in March, 2024. Bills have been prepared and are ready to be processed. A budget is to be received from the Government to make the payment to the petitioner. 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 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. 1 2025 SCC onLine SC 1400 4 SRS, J W.P.No.34025 of 2025 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.7,11,676/- to the petitioner regarding the execution of the aforementioned works, 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: 19.01.2026 BSK 5 SRS, J W.P.No.34025 of 2025 39 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34025 OF 2025 Date: 19.01.2026 BSK