APHC010698652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. V MOSHE BABU, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, R/O.D.NO.14/356, EDEPALLI, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL 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 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S SUB DIVISION, MACHILIPATNANI, KRISHNA DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36523/2025 V MOSHE BABU, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, R/O.D.NO.14/356, EDEPALLI, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S SUB DIVISION, MACHILIPATNANI, KRISHNA DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3331] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI V MOSHE BABU, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, R/O.D.NO.14/356, EDEPALLI, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S SUB DIVISION, p. 2 SRS,J 6. THE ASSISTANTEXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S SECTION, KRUTHIVENNU, KRISHNA 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action, things and deeds of Respondents in not paying the contract bill amount to the Petitioner i.e., Rs.24,86,657/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Seven Only) in respect of the work for shifting of gravity pipeline of Kruthivennu CPWS Scheme at tanelu bridge of Kruthivennu Mandal, which is illegal irregular, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against to the Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents to pay the contract bill amount of Rs.24,86,657/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Seven Only) along with interest for the works carried by the Petitioner 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 pleased to direct the Respondents forthwith to pay the total contract bill amount of Rs.24,86,6571- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Seven Only) along with interest in respect of works carried by the Petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: p. 3 SRS,J ::ORDER :: Heard Sri Komma Vijaya Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Finance and Planning, for the respondents. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not paying the contract bill amount of Rs.24,86,657/- payable to the petitioner for the work executed by him i.e. shifting of gravel pipeline of Kruthivennu CPWS Scheme at Tanelu Bridge of Kruthivennu Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions, furnished by respondent No.4, wherein it is stated as follows: “1st and part bill raised with token number 2025-1177537 and 2nd and Final Bill raised with Token No.2025-2556770. The work was entrusted to V Moshe Babu. The payment will be made within 9 months.” 4. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding completion of the aforementioned work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.24,86,657/-. In fact, the bills were uploaded and token numbers were generated. The instructions are made part of the record. 5. Since the amount payable to the petitioner 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 p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 SRS,J 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 respondent No.4, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.24,86,657/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Seven 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: 23.02.2026 IKN p. 5 SRS,J THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36523 of 2025 Date: 23.02.2026 IKN