APHC010706952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36812/2025 Between: 1. KALAPALA ABRAHAM, S/O RAJARATNAM, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. 2ND WARD VIJAYAWADA RURAL, PATHAPADU , KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, N.T.R DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA- 520001. 4. THE ENGINERINCHIEF, MINOR AND MAJOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION BHAVAN, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT-520001. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S(PROJECT)DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT-520001. 6. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S SUB- DIVISION,MYLAVARAM, N.T.R DISTRICT-521230. 7. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ & RUAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, p. 2 GUNTUR DISTRICT – 522237. 8. GRAM PANCHAYAT, P. NAINAVARAM VILLAGE REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, VIJAYAWADA RURAL MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, 5220012. ...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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the first and final bills and the amounts of 1) Rs.3,02,074/- and 2) Rs.3,22,142/- and 3) Rs.3,02,952/- and 4) Rs.2,65,585/- and 5) Rs.2,49,920/- totally an amount Rs.14,42,673/- even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., 1) Construction of CC Drain from P.Nagaraju (H) to K.Venkateswaramma (H) in P.Nainavaram (V) of Vijayawada Rural(M), and 2). Construction of CC Drain from U.Lakshmi (H) to P.Srinu (H) in P.Nainavaram (V) of Vijayawada Rural(M),and 3). Construction of CC Drain from P.Venkanna (H) to S.Saritha (H) in P.Nainavaram (V) of Vijayawada Rural(M),and 4). Construction of CC Drain from M.Subramanyam (H) to K.Anjeneyulu (H) in P.Nainavaram (V) of Vijayawada Rural(M),and 5). Construction of CC Drain from M.Kanakadurga (H) to P.Maheswari (H) in P.Nainavaram (V) Vijayawada Rural(M) is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay the amounts of 1) Rs.3,02,074/- and 2) Rs.3,22,142/- and 3) Rs.3,02,952/- and 4) Rs.2,65,585/- and 5) Rs.2,49,920/- totally an amount Rs.14,42,673/- with interest @12percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith 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 please to direct the respondents in not releasing the first and final bills and the amounts of 1) Rs.3,02,074/- and 2) Rs.3,22,142/- and 3) Rs.3,02,952/- and 4) Rs.2,65,585/- and 5) Rs.2,49,920/- totally an amount Rs.14,42,673/- forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Honble court permit the petitioner to implead the proposed respondents as p. 3 respondents No.7 and 8. in the main writ petition No.36812 of 2025 and also in I.A. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PRATHIWADA VARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withholding an amount of Rs.14,42,673/- relating to the works executed by the petitioner i.e. (i) Construction of CC Drain from P. Nagaraju (H) to K. Venkateswaramma (H) in P. Nainavaram (V) of Vijayawada Rural (M), (ii) Construction of CC Drain from U. Lakshmi (H) to P.Srinu (H) in P.Nainavaram (V) of Vijayawada Rural (M), (iii) Construction of CC Drain from P. Venkanna (H) to S.Saritha (H) in P. Nainavaram (V) of Vijayawada Rural (M), (iv) Construction of CC Drain from M. Subramanyam (H) to K. Anjaneyulu (H) in P. Nainavaram (V) of Vijayawada Rural (M) and (v) Construction of CC Drain from M.Kanakadurga (H) to P. Maheswari (H) in P. Nainavaram (V) of Vijayawada Rural(M), as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Prathiwada Varun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for respondents. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, RWS&S (P) Division, Vijayawada – respondent No.5. Page 4 of 5 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works. It would further indicate that the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.17,33,231/-, and after statutory deductions, i.e. Rs.1,89,517/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.15,43,714/-. 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 works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.15,43,714/-. 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 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.5, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.15,43,714/- payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, 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: 11.02.2026 TVN p. 5 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 319 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36812 of 2025 Date: 11.02.2026 TVN