APHC010678662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 35194/2025 Between: 1. PICHUKULA PRASAD, S/O VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O NO. 1-22, MAIN ROAD, POTHAVARAM VILLAGE, NALLAJARLA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PR WING, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM- 533101 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R.I DIVISION, JANGAREDDYGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. THE MANDAL DEVELOPEMTN OFFICER, SUBHADRAPALEM VILLAGE, NALLAJERLA MANDAL, EAST GOIDAVARI DISTRICT- 534176 6. THE SUBHADRAPALEM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, SUBHADRAPALEM VILLAGE, NALLAJERLA MANDAL, p. 2 EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT- 534176 7. THE DIRECTOR, M.G.N.R.E.G SCHEME, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KRUSHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001 ...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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent authorities in withhold the payments of Rs. 3,30,000/- i.e. 1) Amount Rs. 1,55,000/- of M.Book.No. 1132B in respect of work I.D.No. PR-4956-23148, 2) Amount Rs. 1,75,000/- of M.Book.No. 1135B in respect of work I.D.No. PR- 4956-23142, under Land development Project in Community Lands (MGNREGS Scheme) is illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to release the fund Transfer Orders for total withhold amounts of Rs. 3,30,000/- 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 release the Fund Transfer Orders for total withhold the payment of amounts of Rs. 3,30,000/- under and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PATHURI SRINIVAS 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 the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the works executed by the petitioner under Land p. 3 Development Project in Community Lands (MGNREGS Scheme), as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri P. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for the respondents 1 to 5 & 7 and Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.6. 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, PRI Division – respondent No.4. 4. A perusal of the said instructions indicates that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works. It further indicates that the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.3,05,024/-, and after QC recovery, i.e. Rs.28,588/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.2,76,436/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the amount payable to the petitioner as mentioned in the written instructions. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.2,76,436/-. 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 p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 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.4, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,76,436/- payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, within 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: 03.03.2026 TVN p. 5 232 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 35194 of 2025 Date: 03.03.2026 TVN