APHC010677742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 35084 OF 2025 Between: 1. PATHAKOTA VENKATA REDDY, S/OVENKATANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO. 1-35, OC COLONY, VELIGANDIA VILLAGE, KONAKANAMITTA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM. 4. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S SUB DIVISION, PODILI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, KONAKANAMITTA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. THE VELIGANDIA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, VELIGANDIA VILLAGE, KONAKANAMITTA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 SRS, J W.P.No.35084 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANIKANTA THOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats 4. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order: Heard 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, appeared for the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 Ms. Vani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for the 3rd respondent and Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel appeared for the 6th respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not paying an amount of Rs.6,00,617/- (Rupees Six Lakh Six Hundred and Seventeen only) (Rs.1,12,871/- + Rs.1,18,264/- + Rs.1,99,557/- + Rs.1,69,925/-), payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., (1) Repairs to bore well pumpsets and installation of new motor at various locations of Veligandla G.p. of Konakanamittal Mandal (2) Construction of slab culvert at Boddurayi and other works in Veligandla (V) & G.P. of Konakanamittla Mandal (3) Improvements to the filed roads in Veligandal GP 3 SRS, J W.P.No.35084 of 2025 limits of Konakanamittla mandal (4) Completion of incomplete grama Sachivalayam at Veligandla Village and G.P. of Konakanamittla Mandal, is illegal and arbitrary. 3. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted instructions of Executive Engineer, RWS&S Sub-Division, Podili-4th respondent dated 24.01.2026, wherein it is stated as follows: “The above 1 work was administratively sanctioned and Technically sanctioned and the above work were completed in all aspects. The above work bills were already submitted to Gram Panchayat, Veligandla GP of Konkanamitta Mandal for making payment. There are no vigilance cases for recovery. 4. Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader has also submitted instructions of Assistant Executive Engineer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Konakanamitla-5th respondent dated 19.01.2026, wherein it is stated as follows: “The above 2,3,4 works were administratively sanctioned and Technically sanctioned and the above works were completed in all aspects. The above work bills were already submitted to Gram Panchayat, Veligandla GP of Konkanamitta Mandal for making payment. There are no vigilance cases for recovery. 5. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 4 SRS, J W.P.No.35084 of 2025 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions submitted by the Executive Engineer, RWS&S Sub-Division, Podili-4th respondent and Assistant Executive Engineer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Konakanamitla-5th respondent, there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement. Since there is no dispute regarding the petitioner’s entitlement and the amount payable to the petitioner is undisputed and admitted, the writ petition 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. 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 facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release/pay an amount of Rs.6,00,617/- (Rupees Six Lakh Six Hundred and Seventeen only) to the petitioner regarding the execution of the aforementioned works, within a 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 SRS, J W.P.No.35084 of 2025 period of 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: 27.01.2026 BSK 6 SRS, J W.P.No.35084 of 2025 256 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 35084 OF 2025 Date: 27.01.2026 BSK