APHC010691122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 35452/2025 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, (PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. .-522237 2. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. .-522237 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, INDIA, PIN-110001 4. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF A.P., TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522501 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. .- 533001 6. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES, LALAEHERUVU, 2 RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 533101 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. 533101 8. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, Z.P.P EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. .- 533001 9. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, KAKINADA- 533001 10. NADIGATIA VILLAGE GRAMPANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, KORUKONDA MANDAL, E.G.DISTRICT. 533289 ...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, 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.2,47,312/- as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India with a consequential direction to the Respondents to release and pay the bill amount of Rs.2,47,312/- with interest to the Petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice and 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 direct the Respondents to release and pay the bill amount of Rs.2,47,312/- 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 FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 3 ::ORDER :: Heard Sri Siva Lanka Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Finance and Planning for the respondents. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.2,47,312/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Providing new bore well motor with all accessories and pumping main to Nidigatla Village of Nidigatla Gram Panchayat of Korukonda Mandal, 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 the Executive Engineer, RWS&S Division, Rajamhendravaram – 7th respondent dated 19.02.2026. 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.2,47,312/-. 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.2,47,312/-. 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”. 6. Given the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, RWS & S Division, Rajamhendravaram – 7th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,47,312/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Twelve 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: 20.02.2026 SNI 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 116 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 35452 OF 2025 Date: 20.02.2026 SNI