APHC010705322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36689/2025 Between: 1. THOTAKURA RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, S/O RAMAKRISHNA RAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O 50-26-18 FLAT NO 201, JEWEL RESIDENCY, VPT COLONY, SITAMMADHARA, VISHAKAPATNAM (URBAN) DISTRICT PIN- 530013. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI PIN- 522241. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PANCHAYATH RAJ, PR BHAVAN, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH PIN- 522501. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PR CIRCLE, VISHAKAPATNAM,VISHAKAPATNAM DIST PIN- 530001. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (PR) (PIU DIVISION) VISHAKAPATNAM, VISHAKAPATNAM DIST PIN 530001. 6. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,VELAGAPUDI, AMARVATI PIN- 522241. Page 2 of 5 7. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENTAL DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, INDIA.PIN-110001 . ...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 to declare the high handed action on the part of the respondents herein not releasing and paying the bill amounts worth Rs 21,80,297/- with interest under the scheme of MGNREGS (SCP grant) even after execution of work as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amounts of Rs 21,80,297/- with interest forthwith to 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 to direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amounts of Rs 21,80,297/- with interest forthwith to the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Bokka Satyanarayana Kamla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.21,80,297/- payable to the p. 3 petitioner in relation to the work executed i.e., Package No.I (Consists of 2 works) 1. Upgradation of the road from Upmaka-Rajayyapeta road to Nallamattipalem of Nakkapalli Mandal and 2. Providing BT to the road from R&B road to Chinna Narasapuram, Payakaraopeta of Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PR PIU Division, Visakhapatnam – 5th respondent dated 23.03.2026. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a total value of Rs.21,80,297/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions of Rs.21,843/-, is Rs.21,58,454/-. 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 the aforementioned work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.21,58,454/-. 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.” p. 4 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 7. Given the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, PR PIU Division, Visakhapatnam – 5th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.21,58,454/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Four only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of 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: 24.03.2026 SNI p. 5 160 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36689 of 2025 Date: 24.03.2026 SNI