APHC010115942026 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: 6675/2026 Between: 1. PAIDI NARASINGARAO, S/O LATE LAXMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCCONTRACTOR, R/O 2-114, KESAVARAO PETA, ETECHERLA, SRIKAKULALM SRIKAKULAM DIST, PIN532410 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI. PIN 522503. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULALM SRIKAKULAM DIST. PINCODE 532001 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYATH RAJ CIRCLE, SRIKAKULALM SRIKAKULAM DIST. PINCODE532001. 4 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ERSTWHILE PRI DIVISION), PIU SRIKAKULALM, SRIKAKULAM DIST. PINCODE532001. 5. 5. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, REP BY ITS DISTRICT HEAD HOUSING SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM. PINCODE532001. 6. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. PINCODE522503. ...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 declaring the high handed action on the part of the respondents herein not releasing and pay the bill amount worth of Rs.15,53,957/- with interest to the petitioner under the grant of NPI Phase-I housing for execution of work as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amount worth of Rs.15,53,957/- with interest to the petitioner under the grant of NPI Phase-1 housing forthwith and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case 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 and pay the bill amount worth of Rs.15,53,957/- with interest to the petitioner under the grant of NPI Phase-1 housing forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, 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 and pay the bill amount worth of Rs.15,53,957/- with interest to the petitioner under the grant of NPI Phase-I housing for execution of work, 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 4th respondent. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.16,79,954/- and after deducting statutory recoveries of Rs.4,26,016/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.12,53,938/-. 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 works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.12,53,938/-. 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 instructions furnished by the 4th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.12,53,938/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Eight 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. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400