Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27775 (AP)

B.Venkatadri Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/226/2026 · 2026-02-23

Subba Reddy Satti

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010711962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 226/2026 Between: 1. B.VENKATADRI REDDY,, S/O. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO.7-21, BANGAREDDY KANDRIGA VILLAGE, SEETARAMAPURAM(PO), VADAMALAPETA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 522 238 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NH-16, TADEPALLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522 501 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHYATRAJ WING, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 517 001 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR DIVISION, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 517 501 5. BALINAIDU KANDRIGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VADAMALAPETA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 517 645 6. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PLANNING, 2 SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522 238 ...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 withholding an amount of Rs. 1,57,678/- (SDF) vide M.Book No.444-B,/17-2018 in respect of work for 1). Construction of CC Road at NVR Kandriga HW in Vadamalapeta Mandal (SDF) vide agreement. dt 01.03.2019, and 2) (i). Rs.78,013/- (SDF), and (ii) Rs. 1,99,459/- (MGNREGS) vide M.Book No.443-B/17- 18 in respect of work Construction of CC Road at Bangareddy Kandriga HW in Vadamalapeta Mandal (SDF) vide agreement dt 01.03.2019, and for totally an amount of Rs.4,35,150/- as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct he respondents to clear the bills total an amount of Rs. 1,57,678/- (SDF) and 2)(i) Rs.78,013/- (SDF) and (ii) Rs. 1,99,459/- (MGNREGS), totally an amount of Rs.4,35,150/- with interest @ 24 percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith 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 to direct the respondents to consider for payment an amount of Rs.1,57,678/- (SDK) vide M.Book No.444-B,/ 17-2018 in respect of work for 1). “Construction of CC Road at NVR Kandriga HW in Vadamalapeta Mandal (SDF) vide agreement. dt:01.03.2019, and 2) (i). Rs.78,013/- (SDF), and (ii) Rs. 1,99,459/- (MGNREGS) vide M.Book No.443-B/17-18 in respect of work “Construction of CC Road at Bangareddy Kandriga HW in Vadamalapeta Mandal (SDF) vide agreement dt:01.03.2019, and for totally an amount of Rs.4,35,150/- forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri Anand Surya, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 paying the amount payable to the petitioner, to a tune of Rs.4,35,150/-, in relation to the works i.e., 1) Construction of CC Road at NVR Kandriga HW of Balinaidukandriga Gram Panchayat in Vadamalapeta Mandal, M.Book No.444-B and 2) Construction of CC Road at Bangareddykandriga HW of Balinaidukandriga Gram Panchayat in Vedamalapeta Mandal, M.Book No.443-B, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PR Division, Tirupati – 4th respondent dated 20.02.2026. 4. As seen from the instructions, the total value of the work done by the petitioner in relation to the aforementioned works is Rs.4,46,106/-. After QC recovery/ Withheld/ Statutory recovery of Rs.41,210/-/-, the balance amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.4,04,896/-. 4 5. In reply, Sri Anand Surya, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, endorses that the amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.4,04,896/-. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions and the submission of learned counsel on either side, there is no dispute regarding the amount of Rs.4,04,896/- payable to the petitioner. 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.”. 7. Given the submission of learned counsel on either, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.4,04,896/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Six 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. 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 24.02.2026 SNI 6 244 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 226 of 2026 Date: 24.02.2026 SNI