APHC010666652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34488/2025 Between: 1. V MANIKANTA, S/O.LAKSHMANA RAO, AGED 31 YEARS, D.NO.6- 2,VAKAMUDI VEEDHI, AMPILI, PALAKONADA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM 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 to issue Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action on the part of the respondents herein, not releasing and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs. 7,51,978/-(Rupee Seven Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Nine hundred and Seventy Eight Only) with interest to the petitioner even though total works were executed I. Extension of pipeline to SC and BC Colony of Bejji Village (Rs.3,09,568/- ),ll. Extension of pipeline in Ampili Village( Rs.4,42,410/-) as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, and 21 of Constitution of India and Consequentially to direct the p. 2 respondents to release and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs. 7,51,978/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Nine hundred and Seventy Eight Only) with interest to the petitioner forthwith, and to 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 to direct the respondents to forthwith consider releasing the amounts Rs.7,51,978/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Nine hundred and Seventy Eight Only) payable to the petitioner herein, pending disposal of the writ 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 :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.7,51,978/- relating to the works executed by the petitioner i.e. (i) extension of pipeline in Ampili Village and (ii) extension of pipeline to SC and BC colony of Bejji Village, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Smt K. Devasri Roshan, 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 to 4. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, RWS&S Division, Srikakulam – respondent No.3. Page 3 of 4 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works; the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.7,42,486/-, and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.7,42,486/-. It would further indicate that the bill was not uploaded in NIDHI portal due to the lack of a budget. The written instructions are made as part of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.7,42,486/-. 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 instructions furnished by respondent No.3, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.7,42,486/- payable to the petitioner regarding 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: 17.02.2026 TVN p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 293 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34488 of 2025 Date: 17.02.2026 TVN