APHC010693722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 35885/2025 Between: 1. KURAKULA SIVA PRASAD, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGE ABOUT 48 YRS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO.4-33, RAMALAYAM STREET, CHINA MACHAVARAM, MACHAVARAM VILLAGE, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM. 3. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB-DIVISION, AVANIGADDA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, O/O. THE MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, KODURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 action of the respondents in withholding the final bill payment payable to the petitioner in relation to the execution of work i.e., Construction of Anganwadi Building at Dintimeraka of Koduru Mandal vide Agreement No. /2020-21 dated 02.12.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the bill amounts of Rs.5,39,583/- payable to the petitioner in respect of the above aforementioned work forthwith 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 take appropriate steps for paying the amount of Rs.5,39,583/- payable to the petitioner in respect of the work “Construction of Anganwadi Building at Dintimeraka of Koduru Mandal” vide Agreement No. /2020-21 dated 02.12.2020 forthwith, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B S N NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard B.S.N.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj 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.5,39,583/-, payable to the 3 petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Construction of Anganwadi Center building at Dintimeraka of Koduru Mandal vide Agreement No. /2020-21 dated 02.12.2020. The Quality Control team inspected on 15.03.2025 and submitted a report on 17.03.2025. Despite the completion of the work, 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, Machilipatnam -2nd respondent dated 19.01.2026. 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 after statutory deductions is Rs.5,39,553/-. 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 work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.5,39,553/-. 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 4 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 5th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.5,39,553/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Three 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: 03.02.2026 SNI 5 196 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 35885 OF 2025 Date: 03.02.2026 SNI