APHC010674922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34909/2025 Between: 1. BASINENI RAMESH BABU, S/O. LATE B VENGAMUNI CHOWDARY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 551, OLD TOWN MUDIGUBBA, MUDIGUBBA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH . ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, (R D.LL) SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, NO 12-47, P.V.S. ICON PATHURU CROSS ROAD TADEPALLI GUNTUR DISTRICT A P 5. THE DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY DWMA, PUTAPATRI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2 (PRI DIVISION OFFICE) PENUGONADA, SRI SATYASAI 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 a Writ, Direction, Order or Orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing/ remitting the EMD deposited amounts of Rs. 12,500/-, Rs. 17,000/- , Rs. 13,000/-, Rs. 26,315/-, Rs. 19,151/-, Rs. 19,132/-, Rs. 7,497/- amounting totally to an amount of Rs. 1,14,595/- And QC amounts of Rs. 26,315/-, Rs.19, 151/-, Rs. 19,132/-, Rs. 7,497/- amounting total to an amount of Rs. 72,095/- i.e., total amount for both EMD and QC amounts are of Rs. 1,86,690/- towards the work done by the Petitioner and consequently direct the Respondents to release the EMD amounts and QC amounts of total Rs. 1,86,690- forthwith along with 24 PERCENT deposited by the Petitioner 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 grant an interim direction directing the Respondents to forthwith pay/remit the EMD amount of Rs. 1,14,595/- and QC amounts of Rs.72,095/- both to an total of Rs. 1,86,690/- to the Petitioner bank account forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PALEM LAKSHMI PRIYA 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. Palem Lakshmi Priya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj 3 and Rural Development, Finance and Planning, appeared for the respondents 1 to 6. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.1,86,690/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the seven works. The Quality Control team inspected on 06.04.2018 and submitted a report on 09.04.2018. Despite the completion of the works, 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, Penukonda -6th respondent dated 21.01.2026. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.1,29,748/-. 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 works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.1,29,748/-. 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 3rd respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.1,29,748/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Eight only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, 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: 28.01.2026 SNI 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 272 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34909 OF 2025 Date: 28.01.2026 SNI