Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27041 (AP)

DONGA DURGA PRASADA RAO v. The State of Andhara Pradesh

WP/34523/2025 · 2026-01-20

Subba Reddy Satti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010667962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34523 OF 2025 Between: 1. DONGA DURGA PRASADA RAO, S/O.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGE 57 YEARS, OCCCONTRACTOR, R/O.KOYYETIPADY VILLAGE, PENUNTRA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT PETITIONER ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH, , REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PR AND RW DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR AND RD, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NARSAPURAM DIVISION, NARSAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM. 7. THE GRAMPANCHAYATI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KODERU VILLAGE AOHANTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 SRS, J W.P.No.34523 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANDA VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY 4. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Manda Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Smt. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for the respondents 1, 2, 4 & 5, Ms. Vijaya Sree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for the 3rd respondent, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, appeared for respondent No.6 and Sri P.Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.7. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents withholding the amount of Rs.50,329/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Nine only) relating to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. “Construction of CC road in Dakshinapalem in Koderu (V) of Achanta (M), as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of 3 SRS, J W.P.No.34523 of 2025 Assistant Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Narasapur, W.G. District – respondent No.4 dated 19.01.2026 and learned Standing Counsel also submitted the written instructions of Grampanchayati, Koderu Village, Achanta Mandal, West Godavari District – respondent No.7 dated 20.01.2026. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the work and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.50,329/-. 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 work and the petitioner’s entitlement Rs.50,329/-. 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.”. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release/pay an amount of 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 4 SRS, J W.P.No.34523 of 2025 Rs.50,329/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Nine only) to the petitioner regarding the execution of the aforementioned works, within a period of two (02) 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: 21.01.2026 BSK 5 SRS, J W.P.No.34523 of 2025 401 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34523 OF 2025 Date: 21.01.2026 BSK