APHC010691092025 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: 35437/2025 Between: 1. TALLA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.5-103, TALLURU VILLAGE, GANDEPALLI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.522237 2. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, INDIA.. PIN-110001 3. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF A.P., TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522501 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. .- 533001 5. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS S DIVISION EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINAD-.- 533001 6. 6. TALLURU VILLAGE GRAMPANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, GANDEPALLI MANDAL, E.G.DISTRICT. 533297 ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 2 SRS,J 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents herein failure to pay the bill amount of Rs.4,18,286/- as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14,16 21 of the Constitution of India with a consequential direction to the Respondents to release and pay the bill amount of Rs.4,18,286/- with interest to the Petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice and pass s 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 pleased to direct the Respondents to release and pay the bill amount of Rs.4,18,286/- with interest to the Petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri Siva Lanka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents 1 and 3; learned standing counsel for respondent No.2; Ms. P. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent No.4; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, for p. 3 SRS,J respondent No.5; and Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent No.6. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.4,18,286/-, payable to the petitioner for execution of work i.e. Providing Bore well and water supply to Rajaka’s at Talluru (V) Gandepalli Mandal, in pursuance of agreement dated 31.10.2023, 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 Executive Engineer, RWS & S Division, Kakinada. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.4,18,286/-. 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 for Rs.4,18,286/-. 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 p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 SRS,J 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 Executive Engineer, RWS & S Division, Kakinada, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.4,18,286/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty six only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, 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: 28.01.2026 IKN p. 5 SRS,J THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 35437 of 2025 Date: 28.01.2026 IKN