APHC010122112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 6767/2026 Between: 1. GORANTLA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. MOHAN RAO, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O.6-68, SUDIVARIPALEM VILLAGE, INKOLLU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523167 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-522237. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DPC, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE-523001. 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND PROGRAMME OFFICER, MGNREGS, M.P.P., INKOLLU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523167. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523001. Page 2 of 4 6. THE DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB-DIVISION, PARCHUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523169. 7. THE SUDIVARIPALEM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SUDIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, INKOLLU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523167. ...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 an appropriate writ or order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in not releasing the bill amount of Rs.2,39,969/- even after successful execution of work for Construction CC road from Gorantia Mallikarjuna Rao (FI) to V.P. Fligh School (Polimera) in Sudivanipalem (V) in Inkollu (M) Vide Work ID No.087062502001080020 under MGNREGS plus DMF grant in Sudivaripalem Village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District, as is illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of the principles of natural justice. consequently direct the respondents to pay the bill amount of Rs.2,39,969/- to the petitioner forthwith interest of 18% and pass such 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 release the bill amount of Rs.2,39,969/- for execution of work for “Construction CC road from Gorantia Mallikarjuna Rao (H) to V.P. High School (Polimera) in Sudivanipalem (V) in Inkollu (M)” Vide Work ID No.08706250200108 0020 under MGNREGS+DMF grant in Sudivaripalem Village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District immediately, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, 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 bill amount of Rs.2,39,969/- even after successful execution of work for Construction CC road from Gorantia Mallikarjuna Rao (FI) to V.P. Fligh School (Polimera) in Sudivanipalem (V) in Inkollu (M) Vide Work ID No.087062502001080020 under MGNREGS plus DMF grant in Sudivaripalem Village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI PIU Division, Bapatla. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.6,42,728/- and out of which an amount of Rs.4,02,759/- was already paid to the petitioner. Now, the balance amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.2,39,969/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. Page 4 of 4 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.2,39,969/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors Vs. 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 the Executive Engineer, PRI PIU Division, Bapatla, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,39,969/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Nine only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within two (02) 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 PVD 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400