APHC010669112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34686/2025 Between: 1. K M SUBANAIAH, S/O.PAKEERAIAH, AGE 63 YEARS, R/O.1-80/1, VAYAKALLU(V),SAVALYAPURAM(M) GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, NARASARAOPET, PALANADU DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND MAGISTRATE, PALANADU DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payments of pending amounts of Rs. 10,61,959/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs, Sixty One Thousand, Nine Hundred and 2 Fifty Nine Rupees only) even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e . Construction of CC Drain and CC Road at Various locations In Karumanchi (V) Of Savalyapuram(m) Agreement No. /2023- 2024,Dated 8.12.2023 For the year 2023 as bad ,illegal,, arbitrary, improper, unjust and against the Article 21 of constitution of india and consequently direct the respondents to pay the amounts of Rs. 10,61,959/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs, Sixty One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Nine Rupees only) with interest @ 24 PERCENT per annum for the delayed amount till date of realization for the works executed by the petitioner 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 Pleased to direct the respondents to releasing the amounts Rs. 10,61,959/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs, Sixty One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fifty Nine Rupees onlyjpayable to him, pending disposal of the write petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Ms. Bhavya, learned counsel representing Sri Devasri Roshan Kancharla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Finance and Planning, appeared for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Sri T.Sanjeev Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for the 3rd respondent. 3 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.10,61,959/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Construction of CC Road and Drains in Karumanchi Village of Savalyapuram Mandal vide Agreement No. /2023-2024 dated 08.12.2023. The Quality Control team inspected on 18.01.2024 and submitted a report on 25.01.2024. Despite the completion of the work, the amount was not released to the petitioner. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted instructions of Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Narasaraopet -2nd respondent dated 05.01.2026. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.9,52,585/-. 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 work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.9,52,585/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. 4 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 2nd respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.9,52,585/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Five only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the 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: 23.01.2026 SNI 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 310 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34686 OF 2025 Date: 23.01.2026 SNI