APHC010721512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36882/2025 Between: 1. VULLI ANJAIAH, S/O. KOTAIAH, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANGAVARAM VILLAGE, GURAZALA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPEMNT DEPATMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TADEPALLI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ (PIU) DIVISION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4in not paying the final bill to the petitioner in respect of the work done for Gravel road from Gangavarm to Lakshmi Gangavaram in Gangavaram village, Gurazala Mandal with work ID 07775903050050800001 Agreement, even after approval of the final Bill payable to the petitioner by the respondents 1 to 4 is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to pay the final Bill of an amount of Rs. 9,29,097/- along with interest @ 12percentage 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 Pleased to direct the respondents Ito 3 to release the payment of undisputed amount of Rs. 9,29,097/- by the respondent No.4 in order to pay the amount to the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGESWARA RAO CHAVA 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 Nageswara Rao Chava, 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.9,29,097/- payable to the p. 3 petitioner in relation to the work executed by him under MGNREGS i.e. „Providing the Gravel Road from Gangavaram to Lakshmi Gangavaram, Gangavaram (V) of Gurazala Mandal vide ID No.077590305005080001, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today when the matter is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Narasaraopet. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a total value of Rs.9,49,196/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory recovery of Rs.50,056/-, is Rs.8,99,140/-. 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.8,99,140/-. 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, PRI Division, Narasaraopet, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.8,99,140/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred and Forty 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: 13.03.2026 IKN